HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD SR Airport Recreational Facility Project 2014.01CITY OF�� Agenda Item No: 5.a
Meeting Date: January 21, 2014
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Paul A. Jensen, Director (K'1
City Manager Approva'14
SUBJECT: San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility — 397 & 400 Smith Ranch Road — Consider an
amendment to Master Use Permit (UP05-08), approved on December 17, 2012, to modify Conditions of
Approval #38 and #39 governing hours of operation and add Condition of Approval #62 addressing
building safety measures for the approved 85,700 -square -foot recreational building and outdoor fields
project, located on a 16.6 -acre portion of the San Rafael Airport. This amendment is being proposed in
response to the terms of a Settlement Agreement between the City of San Rafael, the San Rafael Airport
LLC (property owner) and Gallinas Defense Council, Inc.; APN: 155-230-10 thru 16; PD 1909 -WO
District; San Rafael Airport LLC, owner/applicant; File No: UP13-050
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to approve amendments to the San
Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Master Use Permit.
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 2012, the City Council approved a new recreational facility project at the San Rafael
Airport property, located off Smith Ranch Road in North San Rafael. A significant portion of the airport
has already been developed under the 'San Rafael Airport Master Plan', as approved in 2001. The
recreational facility project proposes construction of a new 85,700 square foot multi -use recreational
building and outdoor sports fields, with associated parking, lighting, fencing and landscaping
improvements located on an undeveloped portion of the airport property, between the airport runway and
north fork of Gallinas Creek. The City Council took the following action at the December 17, 2012 hearing
to approve the project (collectively referred to as the Project Approvals):
• Adopt City Council Resolution # 13477 — Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report for the
San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility Project
• Adopt City Council Resolution # 13478 — Adoption of CEQA Findings and Approving Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Pass Ordinance #1909 — Amending the Planned Development Zoning for San Rafael Airport
(Subsequently Adopted on January 7, 2013)
• Adopt City Council Resolution # 13479 — Approval of Environmental and Design Review Permit
and Master Use Permit Amendment for the airport and new recreational facility.
On January 17, 2013, Gallinas Creek Defense Council, Inc. (Petitioners) filed a petition for writ of
mandate in Marin County Superior Court challenging the City's Approvals pursuant to CEQA. As required
by CEQA, the City, Petitioners and the San Rafael Airport LLC (Airport) thereafter engaged in settlement
negotiations.
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
File No.:°u.,
a
Council Meeting:r :
Disposition:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
On September 18, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement (CA Superior Court, Marin
County, Stipulation for Dismissal Case No CIV1300259, Settlement Agreement) whereby the Airport
property owner agreed to limit the evening hours of operation for the outdoor fields and artificial lighting to
9 p.m. every day of the year. In conjunction with the required decrease in outdoor night time operations,
the parties agreed that the Airport property owner may seek City approval to allow the indoor facility to
remain open until 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday (weekdays) and 12 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays
(weekends). Currently, the project approvals require that the indoor facility close at 10:30 p.m. on
weekdays and 11 p.m. on weekends, but allows for these hours to be extended after one-year of
operation, if it is determined there are not unanticipated excessive noise impacts. This immediate
increase in indoor hours has been identified by the Airport property owner/applicant as necessary to
account for the loss in recreational opportunities caused by the 9 p.m. outdoor facility curfew and maintain
economic viability of the recreation project.
Further, the settlement agreement stipulates that the Airport property owner shall implement additional
safety measures from the list of `Optional Building Design Measures' contained in the May 16, 2012 letter
prepared by Mead & Hunt, the City's Airport Safety Consultant. The settlement agreement requires that, if
the Airport property requests revised indoor hours, the terms regarding reduced outdoor field hours and
additional building safety measures (set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Settlement Agreement) must
also be incorporated as conditions of approval in an amended Conditional Use Permit.
On November 5, 2013, the Airport filed an application to request incorporation of all pertinent changes to
the hours of operation and building safety as identified in the Settlement Agreement and discussed
herein.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the following proposed changes to the current San Rafael Airport Recreational
Facility Master Use Permit (UP05-08):
Hours of Operation
The Airport property owner seeks modification of Conditions of Approval #38 and #39 to Master Use
Permit (UP05-08) which governs the hours of operation for the Project's indoor and outdoor recreation
facilities. The revisions to the current condition of approval are shown with strikethrough and underline
text, as follows:
38. Indoor use Hours: The hours of operation for the indoor recreational uses and ancillary uses
shall be as follows:
a. 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 1&30 P.M., Sunday to Thursday and Federally designated holidays
(weekdays).
b. 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. 4 G� -.W., Friday and Saturday (weekends)
c. Saturday and Sunday hours of operation can start at 8:00 A.M. during the winter season
(November 1 to May 15)
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Paye: 3
39. Outdoor Use Hours: The hours of operation for the outdoor sports and warm-up fields shall be as
follows:
a. 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., Daily (Seven Days a Week
be. Saturday and Sunday hours of operation can start at 8:00 A.M. during the winter season
(November 1 to May 15)
The &00 P.M. weekday Gurfew established for outcleer sports field use may be exteRded to 10:00
P.M. at the latest, subject tO GeMplianGe with mitigation measure MM N 1 (F.VeR'Rg Noose); whiGh
has been established to addFess the poteRtial that noise frem late eveRiRg gameS Gould anRey
ghbors te the south Of a 1 decibel iRGFease ever the maximum allowable nightt me noose levels
were realized. in ordeF te extend weekday game hours by 1 hour in the evening, the preject
SPORSeF shall monitor neise levels duri__ a — . - . mum of five games during the first full year—of
operations, 'R erder to determine wheth�_r. the use of eutdoer fields and warm up aFeas weuld
result in eXGeedence of the 40 dBA exteFier residential nighttime noise threshold at the Gleses
resideRtial property boundary,
The City shall appFeve the monitering SGhedule, te eRsure that mORitering OGGurs during the tim
when outdeer fields are 'R fUll LAsage. A Gepy ef the noise Gensultant's analysis shall be submitted
to the City. if the analysis demonstrates that the Noose Ordinance thresheld would be eXGee
the outdooF faGilities shall remain Glosed by 9 P.M., Sundays through Thursdays, and 10 P.M. en
Fridays and Saturdays. if the noise analysis deMORstrates that the Noise Ordinance nightti
noise thresheld would Ret be exceeded, the eutdoor fadlities may extend the hours of opera
to 10 P.M., Sundays threugh Thursdays.
Artificial lighting shall be turned off no later than 9:00 P.M. every day of the year and shall not be
turned on again before 8:00 A.M. of the following day. Use of the outdoor fields shall cease no
later than 9:00 P.M.No other artificial lighting shall be used on the outdoor playing fields after
9:00 P.M.or before 8:00 A.M. The Airport will ensure that any contract for operation of the Sports
Facility by a third party will include this limitation on use of the outdoor fields and any third party
operator must agree to be bound by the terms of this Condition.
As noted above, the change to Condition #38 (indoor hours of operation) is being requested by the Airport
to account for the lost recreational opportunities caused by the early closure of the outdoor playfields, as
reflected in the revisions to Condition #39 and which is required under the settlement agreement. The
immediate increase to the indoor evening hours of operation is considered by the project proponents as
necessary to support and maintain the financial viability of the operation of the recreational facility over
the long term life of the project. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Gallinas Defense
Council agreed not to oppose the requested change to Condition #38.
Safety Measures
As provided in the settlement agreement, the Petitioners (Gallinas Defense Council) agreed not to
oppose this application to amend the Use Permit, provided that the City simultaneously approves a
modification to the Conditional Use Permit to limit use of the outdoor fields, as set forth in revised
Condition 39. Further, any such request must also include the additional building safety measures that
are now required pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Therefore. the Airport further
requests that the additional safety measures be incorporated as conditions of approval of the amended
Use Permit. To address this item, the current ED05-15 Condition #68 has been inserted as new UP13-
050 Condition #62. The original text of Condition #68 is provided below in its entirety, with the proposed
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pale: 4
additional safety measure revisions that are required to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement identified in underline text:'
62 The project shall include additional and revised safety measures (including measures from the list
of Optional Building Design Measures from the May 16 2012 Mead & Hunt letter) thereby
amending and replacing ED 05-15 Condition #68 in its entirety, as follows:
Implement mitigation measure MM Haz-2: Elimination of Flight Hazards. In order to ensure that
the proposed Project does not expose aircraft to hazards associated with the operations of the
proposed Project, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following on
detailed construction plans:
a. Limit height of proposed structures to assure clearance of the 7:1 Transitional Surface (aka,
`ascending clear zone')
Redesign, modify or relocate the row of parking stalls nearest to the airfield in accordance
with federal and state requirements so that no penetration into the ascending clear zone
would result; e.g., maintaining a minimum clearance of 10' above parking areas and
driveways.
c. Add obstruction lights to the following features to make them more conspicuous to pilots:
i. Southwesterly and southeasterly corners of building
ii. Southwesterly and southeasterly ends of the fence fronting the airfield
iii. Most easterly field light along the southeastern edge of the outdoor soccer field
d. Tall trees shall be trimmed and maintained to ensure that they do not constitute an airspace
obstruction (or, alternatively, shorter species can be planted).
e. Outdoor parking lot lights and outdoor soccer field lights, in particular, shall be shielded so
that they do not aim above the horizon. Additionally, outdoor lights should be flight checked at
night to ensure that they do not create glare during landings and takeoffs.
f. Construction cranes and other tall construction equipment shall be lowered at the end of each
day.
Incorporate the two mitigation measures for enhanced exiting and fire sprinkler systems (as
currently required in the FEIR).
h. Limit and post maximum occupancy signage for the indoor facility not to exceed 345 people
inside the building at any time (note: this occupancy level accommodates the maximum
occupancy level of 345 people anticipated to be inside the recreational building during peak
usage).
Post maximum occupancy signage at 336 people for the outdoor soccer field area (note: this
occupancy level accommodates the maximum occupancy anticipated for the soccer field and
is set at the low end of the 2011 Handbook's acceptable intensity range).
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Patze: 5
j. Post maximum occupancy signage for 104 people in the outdoor warm-up area (note: this
occupancy level exceeds the range anticipated for use of the warm-up field and is set at the
low end of the 2011 Handbook's acceptable intensity range).
k. Post clearly marked exit gates and fencing around the outdoor field areas to further enhance
safety in outdoor field areas.
I. Install and maintain fencing (chain link or equivalent) between the recreation and airport
facilities to prevent trespass by children onto the airfield and protect the site from any
potential accident from planes that could veer off the runway; with a barrier that complies with
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10B, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item
F-162, Chain Link Fences.
m. Prohibit installation of fixed -seating, including temporary bleachers, around the outdoor field
areas to avoid creating confined spaces and higher than anticipated per -acre intensity
occupancy levels.
n. Prohibit conduct of any special events that would draw a large number of people to the site
that would exceed the above -noted occupancy limits established for the recreation facility
use.
o. Eliminate building skylights.
P. Upgrade roof strength by installing standing seam structural roof panels supported by hot
formed I beam main structural columns and beams.
g. Build concrete walls on the first floor to a minimum height of 8 feet NGVDD.
r Provide fencing between the parking lot and outdoor fields in order to control occupancy levels
on outdoor fields. Include at least four (4) clearly marked exit gates.
s. Prohibit airport access gates in fencing separating the Sports Facility from the airfield.
Separation fencing shall be of sufficient height and design to prevent children from accessing
the airfield."
Condition ED05-15 shall be superseded in its entirety by this new Use Permit UP13-50 Condition
62. All other conditions of ED05-15 shall remain in effect.
In total, this amendment would result in updates and revisions to Master Use Permit Conditions No.'s 1,
14, 19, 38, 39 and 62 (superseding ED 05-15 condition 68, with amendments), which are reflected with
strike -through and underline text in the draft Exhibit 2.
ANALYSIS:
A complete analysis of the original project was provided in reports to the City Council on December 3,
2012, December 17, 2012 and January 7,. 2013. This includes review for consistency with the San Rafael
General Plan 2020, review for compliance with City zoning ordinances and regulations including design
review criteria and guidelines, and recornmendations made on the project by the Design Review Board
and the Planning Commission. All reports, resolutions and attachments were previously distributed to the
City Council and made available to the public on the City website. These documents remain available in
electronic format published on the City website and in the City Clerk and City Planning Division offices. As
outlined in the prior staff reports, the project has been deemed consistent with the City General Plan
2020, zoning regulations and criteria. The specific changes being requested at this time are discussed as
follows:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Change in Hours of Operation
The proposed Use Permit modification represents a compromise position between the Airport and the
Petitioners whereby the outdoor facilities would close at 9 p.m. every day of the week, losing one hour of
currently authorized outdoor evening field use on Fridays and Saturdays and forgoing the future option to
extend play to 10:00 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. In exchange, the Airport requests that it
immediately be allowed to extend the indoor facility hours to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursdays and
to 12:00 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. This change would not materially later the original approvals, and is
consistent with the scope of project review presented to the Boards, Commissions, Council and public
during the original public hearings held on the project.
The Planning Commission had previously recommended the longer indoor hours of operation. However,
the City Council ultimately approved the longer outdoor field hours, but restricted the indoor field hours at
least during the first year of operations, in deference to the concerns with traffic noise impacts that might
impact adjacent residents residing along the access drive, in Contempo Marin and Captains Cove. As
currently proposed, if the project did not have unanticipated noise impacts as a result of the use, the
owner would be able to request this change within one-year of full operations. If the request were not
approved, the terms of the settlement agreement would continue to supersede Condition #39 (outdoor
field hours), with Condition #38 (indoor hours) to remain as currently adopted. Staff supports the
applicant's request to modify Condition #38 (indoor hours), which remains consistent with the original
recommendation made to the City Council in December 2012, along with Condition #39.
Additional Building Safety Measures
As noted in the Project Description, the change to incorporate additional building safety measures is
required by the Settlement Agreement. The Airport property owner must request changes to the existing
conditions of approval as part of its request to extend the indoor field hours. Reflecting this in the
conditions would assure the approvals are consistent with the settlement agreement. This would not
materially impact existing project approvals, and simply serves to enhance building safety beyond the
current requirements.
Environmental Review Analysis
No additional environmental review under CEQA is required to extend the evening hours of operation for
the indoor facilities. The FEIR prepared for this project accounted for the proposed evening hours of
operation when analyzing noise, lighting and other potential environmental impacts. Further, there has
been no change in circumstances or other triggering event under Public Resources Code section 21166
which would warrant supplemental environmental review.
The FEIR supporting the project contains a comprehensive analysis of noise and light impacts associated
with indoor and outdoor operations of the sports facilities. The project, as described in the FEIR,
assumed for the impact analysis that outdoor field use and lighting would run until 11 p.m. Sunday
through Friday and 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday (See DEIR 3-13). The FEIR concluded that the
project could result in potentially significant impacts associated with night time lighting and noise. In order
to address these impacts, the EIR proposed the following mitigation measures, which have been adopted
by the City Council and incorporated into the project and the project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP).
MM Aesth-1a requires Design Review Board approval of the lighting plan and establishes
performance measures including a 90 -day review of lighting following installation, that outdoor field
lighting is turned off at 10PM, and site lighting be turned off by 12:30AM.
MM N-1 requires outdoor field use to be monitored by a noise consultant during the first year of use to
determine whether nighttime games would cause the City Noise Ordinance to be exceeded at the
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pa$ze: 7
nearest residential property line. If noise ordinance would be exceeded, 9 p.m. would be set as the
curfew for the outdoor field use Sundays through Thursdays.
The FEIR concluded, and the City Council found, that with incorporation of these mitigation measures
(among others), the project's operational noise and lighting impacts would be less -than -significant. As
detailed in the proceedings leading up to the City's approval of the project, there is a tremendous need for
all-weather recreational facilities in the City and the broader Marin community, and helping meet that
demand is one of the primary project objectives. The proposed modification to the operational hours
remains consistent with these objectives. Further, these proposed modifications to the project's hours of
operation hours are consistent with the FEIR mitigation measures and the environmental review
conducted for the project.
During the City Council's approval of the project, the Council placed additional conditions on the evening
hours of operation. Specifically, during the first year of operation, the indoor facility is currently required
to close at 10:30 p.m. Sundays through Thursday and at 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Following
the first year of operation, these hours could be extended to 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. respectively,
provided there were no significant noise complaints, and if any such complaints have been filed, a
Planning Commission hearing would be held to determine whether the extension of hours is appropriate.
Similarly, outdoor facilities are required to close at 9:00 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays and at 10:00
p.m. Fridays and Saturdays. These hours could be extended to 10:00 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays if
an operational night time noise analysis demonstrates that the nighttime noise threshold (1 decibel
increase over the maximum allowable nighttime noise level) would not be exceeded. Staff notes that the
FEIR's noise analysis projected that the operational nighttime noise threshold would not be exceeded.
Accordingly, it is staff's position that the proposed Use Permit modification does not trigger the
requirement for supplemental environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed hours of operation
were a part of the initial project description and scope, which was the base for preparing EIR mitigation
measures. Specifically, the proposed Use Permit modification does not result in: (a) substantial changes
in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report; (b) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require
major revisions in the FEIR; or (c) new information, which was not known and could not have been known
at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete. Public Resources Code section
21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
Noticing & Correspondence
At least 15 days prior to the City Council meeting, a public hearing notice was mailed to property owners
and occupants within at least 1,000 feet of the site as well as other community groups, neighborhood
associations and interested parties. The entry to the airport site and the entrance to the levee trail at
McInnis Park site were also posted with public notice hearing boards, and a notice was published in the
local Marin IJ newspaper. Staff also has emailed notice of the hearing to interested parties that have
previously provided email addresses. A copy of the public hearing notice is attached (Exhibit 5).
One comment has been received by a Contempo Marin resident reiterating concerns with noise from
exiting cars and players.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to the City Fee Schedule, the cost of staff time for review of this proposed amendment as well
as the original project has been subject to full cost recovery. The project shall also pay cost of building
permit review, $5,000 initial deposit to cover staff time associated with mitigation monitoring, and
development impact fees to cover its costs of development, including a $1.13M traffic mitigation impact
fee that will be used to fund the projects fair share of traffic improvements in the area.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Pale: 8
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options available for action on this project:
1. Adopt the Resolutions to reduce outdoor play field hours of operation, incorporate the additional
safety measures, and consider extending indoor field hours of operation, consistent with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement (staff recommendation);
2. Adopt the Resolutions with revisions to reduce outdoor play field hours of operation and incorporate
the additional safety measures only, consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and
leave condition #38 as is (with the indoor hours as currently approved);
3. Continue the matter to future City Council meeting for further review and discussion; or
4. Deny the request to amend the Master Use Permit conditions, leaving the existing conditions and
terms of the settlement agreement to stand.
ACTIONS REQUIRED:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the proposed amendments to the
San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Master Use Permit, as presented in Exhibit 2.
EXHIBITS:
1. Vicinity Map
Page Number
11
2. Resolution Approving Master Use Permit Amendment UP13-050 13
3. Settlement Agreement (CA Sup. Ct. Case No CIV1300259) 33
4. Public Hearing Notice 47
5. Project Site Plan 49
6. Public Comments 51
Exhibit 1 -Vicinity Map (San Raf Airport Rec Facility)
SCALE 1 :10,192
500 0 500 1,000 1,500
FEET
Z)3
Wednesday, January 08, 2014 2:06 PM
Exhibit 2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING UP13-50, AS AN
AMENDMENT TO MASTER USE PERMIT NO. UP05-08 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 85,700 -SQUARE -FOOT RECREATIONAL BUILDING, TWO
OUTDOOR FIELDS, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND
PARKING ON A VACANT PORTION OF THE 119.5 -ACRE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 397-400 SMITH RANCH ROAD (SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT RECREATIONAL
FACILITY PROJECT)
(APN'S: 155-230-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16)
ZC05-01, UP05-08, ED05-15
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13479 making
findings and approving a master environmental and design review permit no. ED05-15 and master use
permit no. UP05-08 approving a new recreational facility project at the San Rafael Airport property,
located off Smith Ranch Road in North San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13477 that
certified the San Rafael Recreational Facility Project FEIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13478 adopting
CEQA Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1909 establishing new
planned development district (PD) zoning standards for the site that included development of the subject
recreational facility and uses; and
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2013, Gallinas Creek Defense Council, Inc. (Petitioners) filed a
petition for writ of mandate in Marin County Superior Court challenging the City's Approvals pursuant
to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, as required by CEQA, the City, Petitioners and the San Rafael Airport LLC
(Airport) thereafter engaged in settlement negotiations; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2013, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (i.e., CA
Superior Court, Marin County, Stipulation for Dismissal Case No CIV1300259, Settlement Agreement)
whereby the Airport property owner agreed to limit the evening hours of operation for the outdoor fields
and artificial lighting to 9 p.m. every day of the year and to implement additional safety measures from
the list of `Optional Building Design Measures' contained in the May 16, 2012 letter prepared by the
City's Airport Safety Consultant, Mead & Hunt. In conjunction with the required decrease in outdoor
night time operations, the parties agreed that the Airport property owner may seek approval from the
City to allow the indoor facility to remain open until 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12 a.m. on
Fridays and Saturdays; and
WHEREAS, On November 5, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the
Airport filed an application for use permit amendment (UP13-050) to request extension of the indoor
Exhibit 2
hours of operation and incorporation of the reduction in hours to the outdoor field use and inclusion of
additional building safety as identified in the Settlement Agreement; which has resulted in proposed
modifications to current Use Permit UP05-08 Conditions of Approval No.'s 1, 14, 19, 38, 39 and 62
addressing the hours of operation and construction safety measures, and superseding current ED05-15
condition 68; and
WHEREAS, the amendments to the project do not materially change the project scope as
evaluated by the EIR, and all the findings for approval of the project contained in Resolution 13479
remain valid and cover the subject revisions to the aforementioned conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2014, the City of San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public
hearing on the proposed amendment request, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the
written report of the Community Development Department staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the following findings to
approve the Master Use Permit Amendment to the Recreational Facility at the San Rafael Airport
conditions of approval:
Findings for Approval - Master Use Permit (UP13-050)
A. The proposed amendments to the indoor and outdoor recreational facility use, as conditioned,
remain in accord and consistent with the San Rafael General Plan 2020, the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the Planned Development District in that:
1) The addition of an indoor and outdoor recreational facility to this site has been found
consistent with the types of uses allowed by the Airport/Recreation General Plan land use
designation assigned to this site.
2) The project and the use has been found to be consistent with the General Plan 2020, as
identified in the General Plan consistency table Exhibit 4a of the December 3, 2012 staff
report to the City Council prepared for the project and also detailed in the previously adopted
Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED05-15 Finding A.
3) The new indoor recreational facility use, in conjunction with the existing airport and limited
light -industrial structures on site, would total a 0.06 floor area ratio (FAR) and falls well
within the permitted FAR limits of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 for the North San
Rafael area.
4) The Planned Development District regulations, as amended under the PD Ordinance 1909
adopted for the property on January 7, 2013, permits a recreational use and development
intensity consistent with the goals and policies of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, as
detailed in the General Plan consistency table and previous reports and resolutions adopted
for this project by the City Council on December 17, 2012 and January 7, 2013, referenced
herein and in the recent January 21, 2104 staff report to the City Council.
B. The proposed indoor and outdoor recreational use, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvement in the vicinity, or to the general welfare of the City in that:
1) The Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified for the project on December 17,
2012 by City Council Resolution 13477 pursuant with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2
Exhibit 2
2) Findings of fact and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been adopted for the
project on December 17, 2012 by City Council Resolution 13478 which cover the proposed
minor project revisions to use hours and building safety enhancements.
3) The project was reviewed by appropriate City Departments and other permitting agencies
resulting in conditions of approval which have been included and made a part of the project,
thus assuring compliance with all applicable standards and requirements of the other
permitting agencies so as to avoid any potential detriment to the public health, safety or
welfare.
4) The type and intensity of the use has been determined to complement and be similar to the
adjacent public recreational uses.
5) The structure has been reviewed for compliance with airport safety regulations and found to
be acceptable in its siting and location near the existing private airport.
6) No additional environmental review under CEQA is required to extend the evening hours of
operation for the indoor facilities as the FEIR supporting the project accounted for the
proposed evening hours of operation when analyzing noise, lighting and other potential
environmental impacts and there has been no change in circumstances or other triggering
event under Public Resources Code section 21166 which would warrant supplemental
environmental review.
7) Accordingly, the proposed Use Permit modification does not trigger the requirement for
supplemental environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The proposed hours of operation
were considered as part of the project's EIR and are consistent with the project's mitigation
measures. Specifically, the proposed Use Permit modification does not result in: (a)
substantial changes in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental
impact report; (b) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the FEIR; or (c) new
information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as complete. Public Resources Code section
21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
C. The proposed indoor and outdoor recreational use has been determined to comply with each of
the applicable provisions of the PD District and other applicable provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance in that the project:
1) Would be consistent with the Planned Development District (PD1909), as revised and
adopted for the site on January 7, 2013.
2) Has been designed to preserve and protect the potential wetlands found on the site and the
project does not propose to fill any of these potential wetlands. Furthermore, the proposed
structures and site improvements would provide a setback exceeding the minimum 50 -foot
setback required by Chapter 13 (Wetland Overlay) of the Zoning Ordinance.
3) Would provide a building setback and development free buffer from the creek to the north
exceeding the maximum 100 -foot setback required by the Creeks and Other Watercourse
section of Chapter 16 (Site and Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance.
4) Has been evaluated for noise impacts and would not exceed the standards prescribed in the
Noise Standards section of Chapter 16 (Site and Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance.
5) Has been reviewed for conformance with the City's Review Matrix as prescribed by the
Geotechnical Review section of Chapter 16 (Site and Use Regulations) to assess hazards,
determine optimum location for structures, and present any special structural requirements
and been found to be feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint with the inclusion
C
Exhibit 2
of recommendations, and these design recommendations have been incorporated into the
project through project conditions of approval.
6) Would provide off-street parking in excess of that found to be minimally required for the
recreational use, pursuant to Chapter 18 (Parking) of the Zoning Ordinance, through a
parking analysis prepared for the proposed facility which has been reviewed and accepted as
adequate by the City traffic engineer
7) Parking facilities have been designed to closely meet all parking standards of this chapter,
including landscaping, size and bicycle parking requirements.
8) The proposed modification to hours of operation and incorporation of additional building
safety measures, as proposed as well as required by the terms of the subject Settlement
Agreement affecting the project, would not materially alter the proposed use and
development and remains entirely consistent with the intensity of use and development
anticipated under the adopted PD Ordinance 1909 Zoning.
General Conditions of Approval
1. This Master Use Permit Amendment UP13-500� supersedes and replaces Master Use
Permit (UP05 08) as adopted on December 17 2012 as well as the previous Master Use Permit (UP
99-009), and hereb establishes all conditions for the establishment and ongoing operations of all
uses allowed on the 119.5 -acre property, aka, `the San Rafael Airport site' in accordance with the
Planned Development approval (ZC05-001), the PD Zoning District Standards of the San Rafael
Municipal Code and the recorded Declaration of Restrictions, which limits the land uses allowed on
the property.
2. Conditional uses permitted under this Master Use Permit amendment shall be limited to the Private
Airport and Non -Aviation Uses and Private Recreational Facility Uses as described and conditioned
herein.
3. Any future land use permit requests on the property shall be referred to Marin County Counsel in
order to allow review of the proposal for consistency with the land use deed restriction agreement, of
which the County is a parry.
4. The entire 119.52 -acre airport property on which the recreational facility use is contained shall
continue to be maintained by one owner. No portion of the property may be separately transferred to
separate owners unless applications are filed and approved by the City for a subdivision of the site, in
conformance with the California Subdivision Map Act. Further, any subsequent subdivision of the
property shall include amendments to all applicable land use entitlements, as necessary, to separate
the property into multiple parcels and/or establish any additional land uses on newly created parcels.
5. This Master Use Permit establishes distinctly separate land uses on the property, i.e. Private Airport
Use and Private Recreational Facility Use, which shall be subject to the specific conditions contained
4
Exhibit 2
herein. In the event there is a violation of a condition of approval granted for a specific land use, then
only the land use that is in purported violation of its respective condition(s) of the Master Use Permit
shall be subject to review, enforcement and revocation proceedings.
6. This Master Use Permit shall be subject to compliance with the approved PD (ZC05-01) and
conditions of Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED05-15. Any changes shall be subject to
prior review and approval and may require amendments to related zoning entitlements.
7. The property owner(s) shall be responsible for implementing all Mitigation Measures presented in
the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project Final Environmental Impact Report, on file with
the Community Development Department, which are incorporated within the project conditions of
approval. A minimum deposit of $5,000 dollars shall be submitted prior to issuance of permits to
start work. All costs for monitoring compliance with mitigation measures shall be borne by the
applicant.
8. The Airport property owner(s) shall be responsible for ongoing annual repair and maintenance of the
levee system on the subject Airport property and any levee upgrading, as appropriate, based on
anticipated high tide and flood conditions, to maintain an appropriate height. The Airport property
owner shall cooperate with Marin County Department of Public Works and Marin County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District to ensure that all parties work together to assure that
ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the levee system on State tidelands occurs. An annual
maintenance schedule and a report of maintenance work completed shall be provided to the City of
San Rafael Community Development Department.
9. Currently, the levees on the Airport property are maintained by the airport owner at a minimum
consistent elevation of 9 feet MSL (29NGVD datum) to provide adequate protection from
floodwaters. Modifications and upgrades to the property levees shall be subject to prior review and
approval by the City of. San Rafael or County of Marin, depending on jurisdiction and as required by
applicable codes.
10. All required local, state and/or federal permits shall be obtained for levee maintenance, repair or
upgrades.
11. This Master Use Permit (UP05-08) amendment to the March 19, 2001 Master Plan for San Rafael
Airport shall be valid for an initial period of four (4) years from date of City Council approval,
during which time the property owner shall have to obtain financing, apply for permits and establish
the additional recreational facility uses approved by this use permit amendment. The approvals
granted for the indoor/outdoor recreational facility use shall be null and void if a building permit is
not obtained and the recreational facility pursued diligently to completion, occupancy and operation,
or an extension is not granted before the initial period of time provided to establish the use and
exercise the use permit approval.
12. Upon establishment of the indoor/outdoor recreational use within the initial four-year period
provided to inaugurate the use, the Use Permit as amended herein shall become valid and run with
the land and shall not expire unless the use is abandoned. On-going compliance with all conditions
of approval shall be required.
5
Exhibit 2
13. If the indoor/outdoor recreational use is not established in compliance with the Master Use Permit
amendment, then the applicable Master Use Permit Conditions (i.e., Conditions 35 through 61) and
the related Environmental and Design Review permit conditions shall become null and void. All
other conditions of approval relating to the site and existing airport use shall remain in full force and
effect for ongoing operations of the private airport use and site.
14. The proposed recreational facility may be constructed in phases. However, occupancy of the building
with a primary sports facility tenant shall occur to inaugurate the use during the initial four-year
period from date of original approval of the recreational facility project, or an extension of time filed
prior to the initial project approval expiration period of December 17, 2016.
Permitted Land Use Conditions — Private Airport and Non Aviation Uses
15. Except as modified herein, the Master Use Permit authorizes continued airport use and operations on
the 119.52 acre site in accordance with the Planned Development approval and associated
Development Plan.
16. The private airport use is limited to 100 -based aircraft.
17. The non -aviation uses are limited to those uses described in Attachment "A" (the airport use
inventory titled, "Existing Permitted Non Aviation Uses at San Rafael Airport," dated February,
2001). There shall be no increase in the amount of square footage dedicated to non -aviation uses as
described in Attachment "A." An Administrative Use Permit shall be required for the following
reasons: when there is a change in non -aviation tenants; or when a tenant changes the nature of their
business (including but not limited to the addition of employees or equipment, modified hours of
operation, or an increase in noise or traffic). As part of the Administrative Use Permit review
process, the City shall analyze the potential for any intensification to the uses, including the addition
of employees, new equipment, modification of hours of operation, and noise associated with the new
business. If deemed necessary by Planning staff, project conditions shall address noise mitigation
measures. In addition, the Administrative Use Permit review process shall also include analysis and
review of traffic impacts associated with any new non -aviation tenant to assure consistency with
applicable City traffic regulations subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. At
the discretion of the Community Development Director, a Master Use Permit amendment may be
required.
18. The following airport uses or activities are specifically prohibited:
a. Flight training and the use of the landing strip for practice purposes by flight instructors
b. Helicopters
c. Charter Flights
d. Uses or activities of a public or semi-public nature, including but not limited to "fly -ins" even
though such use or activity is usually considered accessory to any other use or activity
allowed by this permit and any commercial use, including but not limited to sales or servicing
of airplanes not based at the airport
e. Commercial flight activity or student pilot training
f. Non -based aircraft performing landings or departures
6
Exhibit 2
19. The contractors' storage yard uses on the site are limited to the areas (original occupied by Linscott
Engineering, Roots Construction, Superior Roofing, Walt Jewell Trucking and Bartlett Tree Experts)
as shown on the approved Development Plan "Master Plan San Rafael Airport" and described in
Attachment "A".
20. Maintenance or servicing of aircraft shall be limited to aircraft based at San Rafael Airport.
21. The non -aviation hours of business are limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday
through Saturday,, excluding holidays. Operation of these businesses, other than routine office work
or other non -noise generating interior work, is not permitted outside the prescribed hours.
22. The airport shall be operated in full conformance with all requirements of the State of California
Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Program, including the state -approved flight path. Any
changes to the flight path shall require an amendment to the Master Use Permit. No airplanes shall
fly over the Santa Venetia and Contempo Marin neighborhoods during takeoff or landing.
23. The applicant (e.g. airport property owner, or operator) shall maintain a list of all based aircraft serial
numbers and shall maintain a video camera on the taxiway to monitor landings and takeoffs on a 24-
hour basis. Flights shall be monitored from the airport business office or other approved location
subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall
maintain a method to record all flights on video (daytime, nighttime and during inclement weather)
in order to provide the identity of each plane during take -off and landing. Subject to review and
approval of the Planning Division, the applicant shall maintain a method of quickly and easily
retrieving the recorded information when the City or the property owner received complaints about
pilots flying over residential neighborhoods. Videotape archives shall be preserved for a minimum of
60 days. The identity of pilots violating approved flight path shall be provided to the Planning
Division within two workdays following complaint. The airport property owner shall notify all pilots
with based aircraft that pilots violating the flight path restrictions on more than two occasions shall
have their leases terminated within 30 days and shall not be permitted to have their plane based at the
airport. If video monitoring is not effective, other controls can be required by an amendment of the
Master Use Permit.
The property owner shall maintain a record of all flights that do not comply with the conditions of
this master use permit. For example, the record shall include a log of aircraft owner's names and
airplane identification for planes that do not comply with the approved flight path. In addition, the
owner shall also maintain a log of airplane serial numbers for non -based aircraft that illegally lands
at the airport. The log shall be maintained on an on-going basis, and shall be provided to the
Community Development Department on an annual basis as determined by the Community
Development Director.
24. The two modular residences shall be used exclusively as on-site residences for the airport security
guard and caretaker. If the units are no longer utilized for the caretaker and security guard, the
residences shall be removed from the site within 120 days of notification by the Community
Development Department, and this requirement shall be documented by the recordation of a deed
restriction prior to issuance of a building permit for the construction of the first residence.
Documentation of employment and residency at the airport for both the caretaker and security guard
shall be provided to the Community Development Director upon demand.
Exhibit 2
25. All airplane run -ups shall occur at the east end of the runway, or in a designated run-up area in the
vicinity of the intersection of the taxiway and runway. The designated run-up area is subject to the
review and approval of the Community Development Director. Run -ups associated with operations
of a fixed base operator shall only occur inside or in the vicinity of mechanical hangars during the
hours of 8 A.M. and 6 P.M.
26. The airport runway shall be identified with a symbol to indicate to non -based airborne pilots that the
airport is private. The identification shall be consistent with the requirements of the State of
California Division of Aeronautics and shall be maintained on a permanent basis.
Permitted Land Use Conditions —Access, Maintenance and Passive Uses
27. The bridge crossing providing access to the San Rafael Airport Recreation Facility site at the North
Fork of Gallinas Creek shall be replaced with a new 25 -foot wide two-lane bridge deck span, subject
to the following additional requirements:
a. The bridge replacement work shall occur prior to or concurrent with request for and issuance
of building permits for construction of the recreational building, as allowed under the
approved Development Plan and Master Use Permit.
b. The bridge replacement work shall be completed prior to grant of occupancy for any portion
of the new recreational facility building.
c. The bridge replacement shall not occur in the same year as the SMART Rail bridge project in
order to avoid potential overlap of construction work.
28. Areas designated as protected "conservation" areas shall be maintained as passive open space areas;
with the exception that vegetation management and levee maintenance practices are allowed to
continue within these areas.
29. Grazing of the site with animals may be continued for vegetation management within undeveloped
areas (e.g., along interior slopes of levees, within conservation areas and areas not designated for use
by the Development Plan) in order to reduce the need for discing and mowing conducted for wildlife
management as part of the airport safety management practices. This activity shall be subject to the
following restrictions:
a. Fencing for grazing purposes shall be installed and maintained to provide necessary
protection adjacent to habitat on the levees and in tidal marshes.
b. The type of fencing should be suitable for the type of livestock used for grazing. The location
and design of fencing shall be determined by a qualified biologist and based on the wetland
boundaries with ample setback for wetland protection.
c. The location and design of fencing installed for grazing areas shall be subject to final review
and approval by the Community Development Director.
d. Fencing shall be installed prior to animals being transferred to the site, and shall be
maintained in good repair and condition.
30. Commercial storage in containers and uncovered storage of vehicles, boats and miscellaneous
materials are specifically prohibited (excluding construction -related equipment and supplies stored
within a permitted contractor's storage yard, as determined by the Community Development
Director).
s
Exhibit 2
31. Maintenance of existing levees on the property shall continue to be the responsibility of the property
owner(s); i.e., to maintain levees at minimum +9 feet elevation above mean sea level to provide
sufficient freeboard and protection from flood waters. The owner shall be responsible for advising
the City Building and Public Works division when maintenance activities are scheduled and for
ensuring that grading permits for levee work are obtained when required pursuant to applicable codes
enforced by the Building and/or Public Works divisions.
32. On or before July 1 of each year, the property owner shall provide the Community Development
Department and Public Works Department a schedule of completed and planned maintenance
activities, and indicate whether work identified based on preliminary inspections of the levee is
anticipated to trigger a grading permit. Typically, cumulative grading in excess of 50 cubic yards of
material would require a grading permit.
33. The property owner shall be responsible for obtaining a licensing agreement with SMART for the
existing access that crosses the rail track.
34. The applicant shall install all safety measures required by FRA, and CPUC necessary to maintain this
crossing. This shall include, but not be limited to, lights, crossing arms, and other safety equipment.
The new equipment installed shall be Quiet Zone ready in case the City Council decides to include
this portion of the track in a quiet zone.
Permitted Land Use Conditions — Indoor & Outdoor Recreational Facility
35. The recreational facility use shall permit indoor and outdoor recreational uses on that portion of the
site located between the runway and North Fork of Gallinas Creek, east of the airport use support
facilities. The recreational use project area shall include approximately 16 -acres of the entire airport
property (which includes designated "conservation area" containing wetlands, creek and wetland
setback buffers, and a portion of the levee system that surrounds the site) as indicted on the approved
project plans; described further under Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED05-15)
Condition No. 1.
36. Indoor uses consist of an 85,700 gross square foot indoor multi -use recreational facility building for
recreational uses. The mix of recreational facility uses shall be subject to review and approval by the
Community Development Department and City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of building
permits or occupancy permits in order to ensure that the maximum traffic and parking capacities
specified in these conditions of approval shall not be exceeded. The building may include the
following components:
a. Multi-purpose indoor sports area for recreational activities; e.g., two (2) indoor sports fields
and similar activities.
b. Gymnasium area(s) for multi -use recreational activities; e.g., baseball, basketball, lacrosse,
dance, gymnastics and similar recreational activities.
c. Ancillary support uses operated concurrently with the indoor recreational uses, which
includes a 14.400 square foot mezzanine level with administrative offices, meeting room,
pro-shop/retail sales, arcade and a cafe/dining area with ancillary sale of alcoholic beverages
for on-site consumption with food service.
9
Exhibit 2
37. Permitted outdoor recreational uses are limited to one (1) lighted, all-weather surface outdoor sports
field (e.g., 250' by 350' soccer field) and one (1) un -lighted warm-up area adjacent for use by teams
prior to games on the outdoor sports field. Outdoor fields shall be fenced to provide restricted access
which shall be controlled through the main building, to assure occupancy limits are not exceeded.
38. Indoor Use Hours: The hours of operation for indoor recreational uses and ancillary uses shall be as
follows:
a. 9:00 A.M. to 11:009:30 P.M., Sunday to Thursday and Federally designated holidays
(weekdays).
b. 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M."" :n�T, Friday and Saturday (weekends).
c. Saturday and Sunday hours of operation can start at 8:00 A.M. during the winter season
(November 1 to May 15)
39. Outdoor Use Hours: The hours of operation for the outdoor sports and warm-up fields shall be as
follows:
a. 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., daily seven days a week
designated holidays (weekdays).
b. 9;00 A.M. to !0:00 P.M., Friday and Satwday (week -ends).
E Saturday and Sunday hours of operation can start at 8:00 A.M. during the winter season
(November 1 to May 15)
... A. I A=,
. ,
10
. ,
10
Exhibit 2
Artificial lighting shall be turned off no later than 9:00 P.M. every day of the year and shall not be
turned on again before 8:00 A.M. of the following day. Use of the outdoor fields shall cease no later
than 9:00 P.M. No other artificial lighting shall be used on the outdoor playing fields after 9:00 P.M.
or before 8:00 A.M. The Airport will ensure that any contract for operation of the Sports Facilityby a
third parry will include this limitation on use of the outdoor fields and any third party operator must
agree to be bound b the terms of this Condition.
40. All recreational activities and ancillary uses shall end by the designated hours of operation and all
patrons shall be directed to leave the facility by the designated allowable hours of operation (e.g.
event curfew) and/or premises parking areas promptly after close of facility. Congregating in parking
areas shall be discouraged during non -business hours. Maintenance and cleaning crews, employees
and security personnel may be allowed to conduct their routine tasks and shall enter the site no
earlier than one hour before the beginning and leave no later than one hour past the allowable hours
of operation.
41. Use of the indoor and outdoor sports fields may include sports leagues and games (such as soccer,
lacrosse, flag football or similar multi -use sports uses and activities), individual and group training,
and drop-in games, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Department and City
Traffic Engineer.
42. No noise amplification devices including indoor or outdoor speaker systems, loudspeakers or
bullhorns shall be allowed as this would create potential nuisance noise impacts on nearby residents.
43. No fixed or temporary bleachers for spectator seating shall be permitted in conjunction with use of
the outdoor recreational fields.
44. The indoor meeting facility/room may be used for team and birthday parties, staff meetings, meetings
of soccer or sports organizations and referees, community groups, and other similar uses.
45. No sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages or food vendors are permitted to operate outside of
the recreational facility building.
46. Any proposed change in the hours of operation (to operate during the AM peak) and/or intensity of
usage (e.g., to more intense sports field or other recreational activities not deemed by staff as
comparable to proposed and anticipated recreational uses) shall require an amendment to the Master
Use Permit.
47. Any changes to the components of the use involving a substantial remodel that would intensify uses
shall be subject to prior review and approval by the Planning Division and Department of Public
Works to determine whether the changes would result in an intensification of parking requirements
or traffic impacts. A traffic study and minor or major use permit amendment may be required to
address any impacts from a change in any recreational -use tenant occupancy.
48. Parking shall be provided in compliance with adopted PD zoning standards to meet the demand of
the use and requirements of the City parking ordinance, Chapter 14.18. The project proposes 184
I
Exhibit 2
paved parking spaces and 86 overflow spaces for the multi -use recreational building. Final parking
calculations shall be provided with plans submitted for building permit and/or final design review.
49. Any competitive tournament events held on the site shall not be planned that would cause the on-site
parking demand or maximum occupancy limits established for the recreational facility use to be
exceeded. Any special events that would generate off-site or remote parking demands shall require
the prior review and approval of the Planning Division and Public Works Departments.
50. Alcoholic beer and wine beverage service and consumption shall only be allowed as an ancillary
incidental use to the cafe/dining area food service use, as further regulated by the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The applicant shall maintain suitable kitchen facilities,
and alcoholic beverages may only be served when food service is provided. It is intended that food
and beverage service be contained within building areas designated for "cafe and viewing area,"
"field viewing area" and "meeting room".
51. The facility and site shall be maintained in good repair and condition and free of trash, litter and
debris. Trash and recycling canisters shall be provided on and around the recreational building and
outdoor fields and be regularly maintained. Regular trash and garbage cleanup should be conducted
on and around the building and outdoor areas. The property owner shall institute a regular trash pick-
up program to clean up trash on the site and dispose of it in appropriate trash and recycling
receptacles.
52. The private roadway extension from the airport access and leading to the recreational facility shall be
gated to prevent access after the allowable hours of operation. The gate shall remain closed outside
of the allowable hours of operation.
53. Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant and all operator(s) of the recreational facility shall
establish a "code of conduct" plan for review and approval of the Police Department and Community
Development Director.
a. This code of conduct shall be distributed and required to be signed by all users of the facility.
The owner/operators shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to the
Community Development Department and City Officials upon request. (Note: "Users of the
facility" is intended to apply to active participants and not its attendance by visitors,
spectators or parents).
b. Repeated violation of the "code of conduct" shall require that the operators(s) remove and
revoke the patron's use of the facility.
c. The code of conduct shall address the following:
i. Prohibit rowdy and/or noisy behavior
ii. Prohibit screeching of tires, "blasting" music from vehicles or honking of horns
(except for emergency purposes) in the parking lot or along the entire length of the
private driveway leading to the recreational facility
iii . Maintain posted speed limits along airport roadway
iv. Prohibit loitering in or around the building, parking areas, outdoor fields, and
entire length of the airport roadway. No loitering shall occur in the parking lot or
outside the building
v. Prohibit consumption of alcohol outside of the designated areas within the
building
12
Exhibit 2
vi. Prohibit public intoxication
54. The operator shall regularly patrol the site between 9P.M. and closing, 7 days per week. Personnel
shall be made aware of the code of conduct and the conditions of approval and shall enforce them.
a. Prior to the occupancy of the building, the applicant shall submit a plan for security patrol for
review and approval of the Police Department and Planning Division.
b. This requirement for security patrol may be suspended after two years of full operation with
the recommendation of the Police Department, that there have been no significant amount of
criminal or security issues.
c. If this requirement for a security patrol is suspended, it may be reinstated anytime at the
recommendation of the Police Department.
55. Prior to occupancy of the recreational facility, two signs shall be installed, one before the northern
approach to the bridge and one at the western end of the parking lot to inform patrons of the
applicable portions of the "code of conduct" relating to good neighbor practices.
a. The design, placement and content of signs shall be subject to review and approval of the
Planning Division. Once installed, the signs shall be maintained in a good and legible
condition at all times.
b. Required signs shall address the following items:
i. Obey posted speed limits
ii. Respect the neighbors - No loud noise, music, honking while driving into or out
of the site
iii. No loitering
iv. No public intoxication
v. Abide by code of conduct
vi. Abide by on-site parking restrictions
vii. Driveway must be kept clear of vehicles at all times for emergency ingress and
egress — No standing and stopping allowed.
56. Prior to occupancy of the facility, the property owner shall offer to construct a four -foot minimum
solid wall, fence or hedge or combination thereof along the edge of the private access road that runs
along the street edge (adjacent to the grassy area) to minimize headlight glare from vehicle
headlights shining into windows of residences at Captains Cove. The screen shall extend from the
furthest point of the border with Captains Cove property and across the bridge crossing. If
installation of the fence screen is accepted by Captains Cove along the access road boundary, it shall
be installed prior to grant of occupancy allowing operation of the recreational facility. Design and
final placement of fence shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development
Director. If the screen wall, fence or hedge is not accepted by Captains Cove, it shall not be required.
The Airport property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the solid wall/fence or hedge
or combination thereof in perpetuity or until the recreational use ceases. Further, landscape
enhancement along the existing access road easement shall be subject to final review and approval
by the Planning Division.
57. Mitigation measure MM Hyd-1f (Maintenance of Paved Areas) shall be implemented for the
duration of the use. The recreational facility parking lots and other common paved areas shall be
properly maintained by sweeping or other appropriate means, to prevent the majority of litter from
13
Exhibit 2
washing into storm drains. Parking lots and paved areas shall be swept once per week. Should the
Project Applicant or successor fail to maintain this schedule, the City shall sweep the parking lots
and paved areas at the expense of the Project Applicant or successor, and included in CC&R's
recorded for the property.
58. Exterior lighting at the recreational facility use shall be designed and maintained to implement
mitigation measures MM Bio -2e (Event Curfew), MM Bio -3a (Nocturnal Lighting), MM Bio -3b
(Lighting Curfew), and MM Aesth-la as outlined in the MMRP incorporated by reference herein,
and included under Environmental and Design Review Permit No. ED05-15 conditions of approval.
This includes the following lighting limitations related to use of the facility:
a. Exterior lighting provided on a master photoelectric cell;
b. Provisions of sufficient security level lighting;
c. Outdoor field lighting shall be set to turn off 15 minutes after the last game; 9:00 P.M. at the
latest on weekdays and City holidays and 10:00 P.M. at the latest on weekends (if extended
hours on weekends are authorized pursuant to Condition 37);
d. Security level lighting shall be set to turn off in parking areas and pedestrian walkways one-
half hour after close of the facility, e.g. by 12:30 A.M.
e. Lighting of the outdoor soccer field designed to have focused illumination that will ensure no
direct lighting of off-site areas, such as the North Fork of Gallinas Creek.
f. Lighting fixtures on the perimeter of the Project shall be outfitted with hoods and cut-off
lenses so that the light source itself is not visible to the naked eye from neighboring
properties, thereby avoiding indirect light "trespassing" into adjacent habitat areas.
g. The recreational facility shall set a 10:00 P.M. outdoor event lighting restriction (e.g. event
curfew) by which time all outdoor field lighting shall be turned off. This curfew shall be
earlier on weekdays, by 9:00 P.M. unless a noise study is prepared that determines outdoor
field use would not violate the City noise ordinance, pursuant to Use Permit Condition 37; in
which case lighting shall be turned off by 10:00 P.M. at the latest. While safety lighting
allowing visitors to safely leave the site may be illuminated as late as 12:30 A.M., all outdoor
field lighting shall be terminated no later than 10:00 P.M. When there are evening outdoor
soccer events, the maximum 10:00 P.M. end time will ensure that light generated from the
use of the recreational facility's outdoor fields will not disrupt nocturnal wildlife species'
activity patterns, allowing nocturnal migration movements through the project area after that
time. If no games are scheduled, the lighting shall be turned off.
59. Incidental site lighting in the parking areas and around the buildings is allowed in order to foster a
safe environment, but not to allow activity on the outdoor fields past permitted hours of operation.
60. The building and site design shall implement the requirements of MM Haz-1 (Risk Reduction
Design Features), MM Haz-2 (Elimination of Flight Hazards), MM Hyd-2 Flood proofing as
outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), and included in the ED05-15
conditions of approval. This shall include enhanced fire sprinkler and exiting building safety
features, design of all site improvements including parking areas, drive aisles, vegetation and
structures to avoid intersection of the 7:1 `ascending clear zone', installation of safety lighting at
specific locations on the site building, fencing and light standard, and building dry floodproofing to
+7 NGVD elevation in conformance with FEMA -standards, signage identifying maximum
occupancy limits for the outdoor soccer and warmup field areas, and prohibiting access outside of
fenced areas except by facility personnel.
14
Exhibit 2
61. The parking row along the south boundary fence line that borders the airport runway shall be
removed, modified or relocated in accordance with federal and state requirements so that no
penetration into the ascending clear zone would result; e.g., maintaining a minimum clearance of 10'
above parking areas and driveways.
62 The project shall include additional and revised safety measures (including measures from the list of
Optional Building Design Measures from the May 16 2012 Mead & Hunt letter) thereby amending
and replacing ED 05-15 condition 68 in its entirety, as follows:
Implement mitigation measure MM Haz-2: Elimination of Flight Hazards. In order to ensure that
the proposed Project does not expose aircraft to hazards associated with the operations of the
proposed Project the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following on detailed
construction plans:
a. Limit height t of proposed structures to assure clearance of the 7:1 Transitional Surface -(&,a
`ascending clear zone')
b. Redesign modify or relocate the row of parking stalls nearest to the airfield in accordance
with federal and state requirements so that no penetration into the ascending clear zone would
result; e.g., maintaining a minimum clearance of 10' above parking areas and driveways.
c. Add obstruction lights to the following features to make them more conspicuous toip lots:
i. Southwesterly and southeasterly corners of building
ii. Southwesterly and southeasterly ends of the fence fronting the airfield
iii. Most easterly field light along the southeastern edge of the outdoor soccer field
d. Tall trees shall be trimmed and maintained to ensure that they do not constitute an airspace
obstruction (or, alternatively, shorter species can be planted).
e. Outdoor parkin lot of lights and outdoor soccer field lights,_ in particular, shall be shielded so
that they do not aim above the horizon. Additionally, outdoor lights should be flight checked
at night to ensure that they do not create glare duringlandings and takeoffs.
f. Construction cranes and other tall construction equipment shall be lowered at the end of each
day.
g. Incorporate the two mitigation measures for enhanced exiting and fire sprinkler systems (as
currently required in the FEIR).
h. Limit and post maximum occupancy signage gage for the indoor facility not to exceed 345 people
inside the building at any time (note: this occupancy level accommodates the maximum
occupancy level of 345 people anticipated to be inside the recreational building during pe
usage).
15
Exhibit 2
Post maximum occupancy signage at 336 people for the outdoor soccer field area (note: this
occupancy level accommodates the maximum occupancy anticipated for the soccer field and
is set at the low end of the 2011 Handbook's acceptable intensity range).
Post maximum occupancy signage for 104 people in the outdoor warm-up area (note: this
occupancy level exceeds the range anticipated for use of the warm-up field and is set at the
low end of the 2011 Handbook's acceptable intensi range).
k. Post clearly marked exit gates and fencing around the outdoor field areas to further enhance
safety in outdoor field areas.
Install and maintain fencing (chain link or equivalent) between the recreation and airport
facilities to prevent trespass by children onto the airfield and protect the site from any
potential accident from planes that could veer off the runway' with a barrier that complies
with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10B Standards for Specifying Construction of
Airports Item F-162, Chain Link Fences.
m. Prohibit installation of fixed -seating including temporary bleachers, around the outdoor field
areas to avoid creating confined spaces and higher than anticipated per -acre intensity
occupancy levels.
n. Prohibit conduct of M special events that would draw a large number of people to the site
that would exceed the above -noted occupancy limits established for the recreation facility
use.
o. Eliminate building skylights.
p Upgrade roof strength by installing standing seam structural roof panels supported b
formed I beam main structural columns and beams.
q. Build concrete walls on the first floor to a minimum height of 8 feet NGVDD.
r Provide fencing between the parking lot and outdoor fields in order to control occupancy
levels on outdoor fields Include at least four (4) clearly marked exit gates.
s Prohibit airport access gates in fencing separating the Sports Facility from the airfield.
Separation fencing shall be of sufficient height and design to prevent children from accessing the
airfield."
Condition ED05-15 #68 shall be superseded in its entirely y this new Use Permit UP13-50
Condition #62. All other Conditions of ED05-15 shall remain in effect.
16
Exhibit 2
I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on the
21St day of January, 2014, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmember:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
Attachment A — Existing Permitted Non -aviation Uses at San Rafael Airport
17
Exhibit 2
[This page intentionally blank]
is
Exhibit 2
Attachment A
Existing Permitted Non -aviation Uses at San Rafael Airport (Subject to updates)*
Ke
enant
of Use
Description
Employees
*U date/Notes
_Type
Office, storage of
1
inscott
Contractor
equipment, materials
20
Engineering
and supplies, repair of
equipment and vehicles.
Building formerly occupied by
2
Steve Cosey
Auto Repair
Warehouse w/small
3
Underground Construction
office Outside storage
fenced yard approx. 900 sf
3
Pat Phillips
oat repair
Shop
3
d storage
Bartlett Tree
Relocated next to Linscott's yard
4
Experts Remote
Contractor
Outside storage
0
pprox. 3500sf. Formerly Roots
Yard
yard
Livestock, hay and
5
&H
Grazing
grain storage structures,
0
H&H will reintroduce in future.
Management
fences, staging areas
Metal
Workshop. Storage of
1Playgrounds.
Formerly Community
6
Lulu Metal
Sculpture
materials
Artist
Formerly occupied by Caron
Small office, shop and
lumbing. Storage yard Formerly
7
Superior
Contractor
fenced storage of
4
used by Lyle Reed Striping and
Roofing
roofing supplies and
Newton trucking. Yard shape
equipment.
dusted.
Shop and storage within
2Demolished
as part of current
8
demolished
Warehouse
building.
Master Plan 99 improvements.
9
Tom Muirhead
Warehouse
Cabinet shop and
storage within building
1
Replaced Bartlett Tree Experts
Formerly Rich Nave Building
10
Vacant
ffice
Contractor's office.
2
Contractor office.
11
Walt Jewell
ruck storage
1
Trucking
3 Containers
s permitted under condition #8
12
southwest of
Misc. Storage
8' X 20' sea containers
0of
previous use permit Under
Linscott
new plan these are eliminated.
l'Building
and fenced yard
13
Bartlett Tree
Contractor
ffice shop and fenced
14 Previously occupied by Bauman
Experts
storage yard.
then Four Seasons.
19
n
G1
�Ay �
00
Ul
}
0
�n
G`1
I , ,-P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 3 - Settlement Agreement
ELLISON 1`01-K (State Bar No. 149232)
1 -;RICA A. MAHAIW (Slate Bar No. 279396)
SFIU'Fr-., N41HALY & WEINBliRGER LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 552-7272
Facsimile: (415) 552-5816
Folk@smwiaw.com
maharggsmwlaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
GALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
Eu FL7[2[o
OCT 0 tf 2013
S1 VERIOR 001• 11 r
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
GALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC,
Petitioner,
V.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and CITY
COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and
DOES I - 20,
Respondent.
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LLC,
Real Party in Interest.
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
CASE NO. CIV 1300259
Case No. CIV 1300259
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
Courtroom: H
Judge: Hon. Verna Adams
California Environriwwal Qwilitv Act
("Cl' 'Q/\"), 11tiblic IZCSOUrccs ('otie Section
21167.6; Co& ol'Civil Ilrocc(hirc § 1094.5
(alternatively § 1085)
Exhibit 3
City Council
January 21, 2014
I Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement attached hecto as Exhibit A
2 ("Settlement Agreement"), the parties to the above litigation hereby stipulate as follows:
3 j 1 Petitioner's action is hereby dismissed without prejudice.
4 1 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the court retains jurisdiction to
51 enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
61 DATED: September "", 2013 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGE'R LLP
I—In
i
71
11
8'
9
10
I1
1211
13 � i
14 DATED: September 2013
15
16
171
181
191
20J
21
22
23 EG
'14
25
26
27J
n
By: t
ELLISON 1,0LK
ERICA A. MAHARG
Attorneys for Petitioner
GALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
SAN RAFAEL CITY ATTORNEY
By:
ERIC T. DAVIS
Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF SAN RAF AEL
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11',
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: September 1-7, 2013
It is so ordered:
OCT 0 4 2013
VERNA A. ADAMS
Honorable Verna Adams
Marin County Superior Court
509214.1
S HPL LATION
CASE NO. Cly' 1300259
SSL LAW FIRM LLP -
DI AN I-" K. HANNA
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LLC
EXHIBIT A
[This page intentionally blank]
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
'Phis Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") is entered into as of
September 18, 2013, by and between Petitioner Gallinas Defense Council, Inc. ("Petitioner"),
Rcspondents City of San Rafael and the City Council of San Rafael (collectively
"Respondents"), and Real Party in Interest San Rafael Airport ("Real Party"). The parties to this
Agreement will be collectively referred to as "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Real Party proposed the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility ("Sports
Facility"), consisting of an 86,000 square foot indoor facility and two outdoor fields, one of
which will have outdoor lighting and synthetic turf.
WHEREAS, Respondents prepared and published a Final Environmental impact Report ("EIR")
for the Sports Facility in August 2011, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") .
WHE*l AS, on December 17, 2012, Respondents certified the EIR, adopted the findings and
Statement of'Overriding Considerations ("Findings") and approved the Sports Facility by
amending the Planned Development Zoning District and approving the Environmental Design
Review Permit and the Master Use Permit Amendment ("Conditional Use Permit").
WHEREAS, Petitioner timely filed a.petition for writ of mandate ("Petition") challenging
Respondents' approval of the Sports Facility pursuant to CEQA. The Petition alleged that
Respondents' approval of the Sports Facility was unlawful because the Findings Nvere not based
on substantial evidence and the EIR, inter alio, failed to include an accurate, stable and finite
project description and to disclose and mitigate for the Sports Foeility's significant
environmental impacts. The Petition also alleged that Respondents violated the Planning and
Zoning Law by approving a project that conflicts with the San Rafael General Plan and
applicable zoning designation.
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred to review their respective factual and legal
concerns and now seek to resolve their differences with respect to the Sports Facility in a manner
that will avoid litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Restrictions on Ht)ur5 of OReration for the Shorts Facility. The Airport agrees
that it will limit the hours of operation for the outdoor fields and artificial lighting to 9 p.m, every
day of the year. Artificial lighting will be turned off no later than 9 p.m. every day and shall not
be turned on again before 8:00 a.m. of the following day. Use of the outdoor fields shall cease
no later than 9:00 pm. No other artificial lighting shall be used on the outdoor playing fields
after 9:00 pm or before 8:00 am. The Airport will ensure that any contract for operation of the
Sports Facility by a third party will include this limitation on use of the outdoor fields and any
third party operator must agree to be bound by the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Settlement Agreement
Page 2 of 6
2. Safety Measures. The Airport agrees that the occupancy limit for the Indoor
Facility shall ' not exceed 345 people at any time. The Airport f i ther agrees that it will
implement the following measures from the list of Optional Building Design Pleasures from the
May 16, 2012 Mead & Hunt letter:
a. Eliminate building skylights.
b. Upgrade roof strength by installing standing seam structural roof panels
supvrtcd by hot formed I beam mainstructural columns and beams.
Build concrete walls on first floor, to a minimum height of 8 feet NGVD.
J. Provide fencing between parking lot and outdoor fields in order to control
occupancy levels on outdoor fields; include at leas; 4 clearly marked exit gates.
C. Prohibit airport access gates in fencing separating the Sports Facility from
the airfield; separation fencing shall be of sufficient height and design to prevent children from
accessing the airfield.
3. The Gallinas Watershed Program, On June 1, 2013, the City approved the
expenditure of $40,000 to fund its participation in the Gallinas Watershed Program. No later
than thirty (30) days after approval of this Agreement by the City, the Airport shall contribute an
additional $20,000 to the City of San Rafael and the City shall use this money for participation in
the Marin County Gallinas Watershed Program.
4. 1101I of f) t r^r ) l J`OT Indoor Facility. The :'airport m y apple to the City for
modification of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of the indoor facility to 11
p.m. Sunday through Thursdays and to 12 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Such application will
be subject to notice and hearing as required by Government Code section 65905 and section
14.22.150 of the City's Zoning Code. Petitioner will not oppose this application provided that
the City simultaneously agendizes and approves a modification to the Conditional Use Permit to
limit the use of the outdoor fields as set forth in Paragraph 1.
5. Terms of Agreement Included in the Conditional Use Permit. Concurrent with
any request for the extension of hours set forth in Paragraph 4, the Airport will request that the
terms set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Agreement will be incorporated as conditions of
approval in the Conditional Use Permit,
6. Dismissal. Within fifteen (15) days following the Effective Date of this
Agreement, Petitioner shall dismiss its Action with prejudice pursuant to stipulation. The Parties
shall request that this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Settlement Agreement
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 661.6.
7. Enforcement. This Agreement may be enforced by motions fmrsisart to Code of
Civil Procedure section 664.6. The prevailing Party in any dispute rcgurdi,6 with
the terms of this Agreement shall be awarded any fines, costs, penalties, or rernecocs provided by
Settlement Agreement
Page 3 of 6
law, including injunctive relief and/or specific performance. Additionally, the prevailing Party
shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs consistent with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
8. Release. Except for the obligations stated herein, Petitioner, Respondents, and
Real Party do hereby for themselves and their respective legal successors and assigns release and
absolutely and forever discharge each other and their respective shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, agents, attorneys, legal successors, and assigns of and from any and all claims,
demands, damages, debts, liabilities, accounts, reckonings, obligations, costs, expenses, liens,
actions, and causes of action of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether now known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which either now has, owns or holds, or at any time
heretofore ever had, owned or held, or could, shall, or may hereafter have, own or hold against
the other related to the claims alleged in the Petition based upon or arising out of any matter,
cause, fact, thing, act or omission whatsoever occurring or existing at any time to and including
the date hereof including the Action (all of which are hereinafter referred to as and included
within the "Released Matters"). Petitioner reserves its right to challenge, in the manner provided
by law, any future applications by Real Party or any other Party for any other activities or uses
on the Airport property (excluding any applications relating to the implementation of Paragraph
1 and 4 of this Agreement).
9. Successors in Interest. The rights and obligations of the Parties pursuant to this
Settlement Agreement shall inure to and be binding upon each of the Parties hereto and each of
their respective successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, devisees, Wridees or
transferees, and their past or present, direct or indirect, relatives, partners, parents, subsidiaries,
divisions or affiliates, and their representatives, agents, officers, directors or employees, and each
of them, as though they were parties hereto.
10. Notices. All notices which any Party to this Settlement Agreement may be
required or may wish to give in connection with this Settlement Agreement may be given by the
Party desiring to give such notice or notices by addressing them to the other Party at the
addresses set forth below (or at such addresses as may be designated by written notices given in
the manner designated herein), by personal delivery or by certified mail and by electronic
transmission. Such shall be deemed Notice under this Agreement when received by the Party or
upon refusal to accept the personal delivery or certified mail. The addresses of the Parties until
further notice are:
For Petitioners:
Gallinas Defense Council, Inc.
4460 Redwood Highway, Suite 16-309
San Rafael, CA 94903
with a copy to:
Settlement Agreement
Page 4 of 6
Ellison Folk
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
396 Hayes St.
San Francisco, C.A. 94102
For Respondents:
City of San Rafael
Robert Epstein, City Attorney
1400 Fifth Ave., RM 202
San Rafael, CA 94915
For Real Part -v:
Robert Herbst
San Rafael Airport LLC
400 F Smith Ranch Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
with a copy to:
Diane Hanna
SSI, Law Firm LLP
575 Market St., Suite 2700
San Francisco, CA 94105
11. ��cnres ontation t-, Cooi.scl. Each Party acknowledges that it has been represented
and advised by legal counsel, and that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the Parties and is executed freely and voluntarily by the Parties. There are no oral
understandings, terms or conditions, and neither Party has relied upon any representation,
express or implied, not contained in this Agreement. No other promises, agreements, or
statements shall be binding unless signed by the person or entity to be bound. This Agreement
may not be --modified, altered, or otherwise amended unless set forth in a wTiting signed by both
Parties.
12. No Liability. Each Party agrees and acknowledges that neither this Agreement
nor the settlement negotiations which led to it are intended to be, and shall not be deemed,
construed, nor treated in,any respect, as an admission of liability or any other matter by any
Party, person, or entity for any purpose.
13, Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Except as provided in Paragraph 8, all Parties will
bear their own fees and costs in connection with this matter.
14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, and facsimile or
PDF -signatures are acceptable. Each counterpart sh.,911 be deemed an original, and when
b
Settlement Agreement
Page S of 6
executed, separately or together, shall constitute a single original instrument, effective in the
same manner as if the Parties had executed one and the same instrument.
15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be considered severable so
that if any provision or part of this Agreement shall at any time be held invalid, the remainder of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
16. Waiver. No waiver by the Parties or by their respective attorneys of any
condition, provision, or term of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other condition,
provision, or term of this Agreement.
GALLINAS CREEK DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Ellison Folk
Counsel for Gallinas Creek Defense Council, Inc.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
By:
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Robert F. Epstein
City Attorney, City of San Rafael
[Signatures continued on next page.J
Sett cnieiet .4�r�crrler.t
Parc 6 of 6
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT, LLC,
a California limited liability company
BY:
Name: Robert Herbst
Title: 'Manager
ApN)ved as to Form:
Diane K. Hanna
Counsel for San Rafael Airport. LLC
GALLINAS C�DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC,
Name:
Title: 71 '
Approved as to Form:
Ellison Foik
Counsel for Gallinas Creek Defense Council, Inc.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
By:
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Robert b rt F. Epstein
City Attorney, City of San Rafael
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:
Name: Robert Herbst
Title: Manager
Approved as to Form:
Diane K. Hanna
5
1
2
3
4i
5'
6
7
8I
9
10''
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24j
25'
26f
27
281
PROOF OF SERVI
Gallinas Defense Council v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Case No. CIV1300259
Marin County Superior Court
At the time of service, I eras over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is
1396 Hayes Street, San 1-"rancisco, CA 94102,
On SeptemberW, 2013, 1 served true copies of the following document(s) described as;
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
I on the parties in this action as follows;
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or pacicagc. addressed to the
perso:ts at 111e uddresses listccl it1 the Servic-c 1-ist and placed the envelope for collection and
1r1ailir3L'_ our ordilwry business practices. I gun readily l'antilirir with Shritc, N ilitrly
pr- lctice f'or collecting Ind JW0 "SSIn " cO,•r Spolldclice for m -tiling. 011 the
sotnrc d,tti� that tile, co1•re. J)o11 lcnCQ' is piocrd 1? -,r collc:ctio it ;117,1 n1 111En r. it is deposited in the
ordin'll.\° cot Irse ol'bosilte,s �tiith the L�llitc°d suites In a scaled cnvelopc Nvith
postageftrlly prepaid.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the a
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on September3n, 2013, at San Francisco, California.
S I'PL;L aTION i=0k DISti1155AL
CASE NO. CIV 1300259
4' —
Patricia . . StJencer
1
2
3
4t
5
6
7
8
9i
10
11
12
13+
i
14
1
15
16E
17
18
19
20
211
:
22
23
241
e
25
26
281
SERVICE LIST
Gallinas Defense Council v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Case No. CIV1300259
Marin County Superior Court
1��iaGrt I . l:i�•ti3r. ('ityAttorlt�.:v Diane K. Hanna
l,riC 1 1);1VP,, 1 >(211LIt\ C.'it)* .At10v11C�y SSL Law Firm LLP
C'it� cif Sa fl 1:ol,;,Ivl City A,millivy's Of ee 575 Market Street, Suite 2700
1.100 H1111 A%C11LW, 8111 202 San Francisco, CA 94105
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 diane@ssllawfirm.coin
Tel: 415-485-3080 Tel: 415-243-2090
Fax: 415-485-3109 Fax: 415-814-6401
Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and CITY SAN RAFAEL AIRPORTLLC
COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
------------- - -----------
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
CASE N0. CIV1300259
Exhibit 4
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project:
PROJECT: 397-400 Smith Ranch Road (San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project
Amendment) — Request for an amendment to the Master Use Permit (UP05-08) Conditions of
Approval to modify hours of operation and construction details of the recently approved
85,700 -square -foot recreational building and outdoor fields located on a 16.6 acre portion of
the San Rafael Airport site, to address the terms of the settlement agreement between the City
of San Rafael, the San Rafael Airport LLC and Gallinas Defense Council, Inc.; APN: 155-
230-10 thru 16; PD 1909 -WO District; San Rafael Airport LLC, owner/applicant; File No:
UP 13-050
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed On
December 17, 2012 the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared for
the project pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This
amendment is consistent with the scope of project evaluated by the EIR and is proposed based
on a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit preciously challenging certification of the
subject EIR
HEARING DATE: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street
San Rafael, California
WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and
HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the project applications.
IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of
ATTEND: San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior
to the meeting.
FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or
INFORMATION: kraig.tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office,
located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the
Friday before the meeting at hgp://www.ciiyofsanrafael.orp,/meetings
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Esther Beirne
Esther Beirne
CITY CLERK
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter
described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b)
(2))•
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 9(P day following the
date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6)
Sign and iwivpretation and assistive Listening devices 177m be regcrested t;t calling (115) 485-30.35 (voice) or (415) 485-3198
I7)1)i nt /east . 2 hours to advance. Copies )' docrunents are av cnlab/e IN access,nle rnpon reritiest.
Public tr �m�l�ortation to Cih hail is available through Golden Gam Tra77571 Linc 22 or 23. Para -transit is ai aitab/e by calling
11'histlestop I t heeis at (415 454-0964.
To ailolr individuals frith environmental illness ormultiple chemicai sensitivai to attend the meeting hearing, individuals are requested
to refrain from wearing scented products.
[This page intentionally blank]
Exhibit 5 - Site Plan
o 1
�1 S'.�gg 'i,� ; e�� I � ��t,� F 1 m
rn
d
n
5
!�` ,kkk
• \ ``
7
eaf
q7 7
APa 155.,,,C �i �s, ,<�s,w OBERKAMPER & ASSOCIATES '
BASE MAP CIV ENC 1%1 INC
aoo a wuio a
LANDS OF OF SAN RAEAEL AIRPORT LLC ' PARCEL B, 21 PMAls� nioreta��vyobrroeµu7mn.mm
[This page intentionally blank]
Exhibit 6
From: Elena Garnache [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 6:13 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Re: Airport
Hello Mr. Tambornini,
As a Contempo resident I fear the noise from exiting players/cars etc will
greatly lessen the quality of my life as traffic noise/excited players will
awaken me at such late hours. Is there any way games can be over by
9pm every day of the week? Unless you build a parking area by the golf
course the noise cannot be avoided.
Who would dare tell happy players to be quiet, shhhhhhh, it'll
awaken/bother the neighbors? This place should be built in an industrial
area where this would not become an issue.
Thank you for your time,
Elena Garnach6
Esther Beirne
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:51 AM
To: Robert Herbst; Robert F. Epstein
Cc: Paul Jensen ( ; Esther Beirne
Subject: Airport Condition
W
I consulted with a noise consultant last week regarding recommended changes to the condition of approval. Based on
these conversations a few things were made clear. The first is that roadway noise will be perceptible and therefore the
noise ordinance exempts traffic noise from the noise ordinance limits. New 24 hour and evening baseline measurements
would be recommended to measure existing traffic related noise levels in order to have a measure to compare against.
Second, the original noise study did not show any exceedance of the noise ordinance. It is not expected that the project
would exceed the noise ordinance. Third, the noise consultant would need to conduct new baseline measurements
before construction, for establishing comparison of evening hours, and would have 2 staff take measurements in order
to note noise sources. This would enable any intermittent loud noise sources to be accurately identified for comparison
purposes. I have provided a summary of my background discussion with the draft proposed revised condition of
approval that has been developed with the consultants guidance. In order to get this to the City Council by next Tuesday
I need to finalize my report ASAP. I believe this has to be with the City Clerk no later than tomorrow.
Kraig — 485-3092
BACKGROUND
Staff has consulted with a noise consultant regarding changes recommended for Condition 38. Once the project is operational, the
noise consultant recommends nighttime noise surveys at the following locations:
1) Near the two residences located along the private access road and south of the Gallinas Creek Bridge and,
2) At the nearest residence at Santa Venetia (i.e., approximately Site LT -2 of the Illingworth & Rodkin EIR appendix J
report).
The nighttime noise survey would be necessary to measure nighttime noise levels, while the facility is operating, between 9:00 PM
and 11:00 PM (nighttime) and after the facility has ceased operation between 11:00 PM and midnight. This allows for the following
observations to be made:
• Segregating out project noise from other ambient noise sources, and
• Providing a direct comparison between approved hours of operation and the extended hour.
The noise study would require 2 staff to conduct measurements on 3-4 evenings during facility operations during the months of
September to April (peak season), along with a noise monitoring station to measure ambient traffic noise levels near the access
road. Staff would take measurements and notes on noise activity near the access bridge and near Santa Venetia.
In addition, new baseline measurements would need to be taken prior to construction of the facility in order to compare results of
noise increase over existing ambient levels, including type, frequency, duration and intensity. Additional baseline noise
measurements are required at the two referenced locations prior to project operations to establish noise levels at receptors located
in varying noise environments near the private access roadway serving the project, off Smith Ranch Road.
The consultant has advised that data is available from a recent, previous project collected near the two residences northeast of the
private access road (aka, 'Silveira Parkway') and south of the Gallinas Creek Bridge. A new measurement would need to be made at
the Captains Cove residences nearest the subject private access road and Smith Ranch Road, north of the bridge. It is noted that the
measurements in the original report do not show any exceedances for the quiet areas (i.e., areas away from Smith Ranch Road
including Santa Venetia, Contempo Marin, and the southernmost portion of Captain's Cove).
Further, it is noted that traffic noise is perceptible and exempt from the city noise ordinance. The updated study would gather noise
data near the access bridge to assess the increase in traffic noise (noise from cars driving across the private roadway and bridge
serving the facility). 'The revised condition should allow for an adjustment to the ordinance limits based on the ambient data
collected during the monitoring program developed for first year operations, if appropriate.' This adjustment may be necessary if
the 11:00 pm to midnight measurements show that ambient noise levels (without operations) currently exceed the noise ordinance
limits.
DRAFT REVISED CONDITION
Indoor use Hours: The hours of operation for the indoor recreational uses and ancillary uses shall be as follows:
a. 9:00 A.M. to 10:30 P.M., Sunday to Thursday and Federally designated holidays (weekdays).
b. 9:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Friday and Saturday (weekends)
c. Saturday and Sunday hours of operation can start at 8:00 A.M. during the winter season (November 1 to May 15)
One (1) year after the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility has opened, the applicant may request an extension of nighttime
operating hours (i.e., to remain open until 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday instead of 10:30 PM, and until 12:00 AM on Friday
and Saturday instead of 11:00 PM). The decision to extend the hours of operation shall be largely determinate upon the results of a
noise study prepared to identify the resulting noise levels at the nearby Captains Cove, Contempo Marin and Santa Venetia
residential neighborhoods. Measurements shall be taken on two to three weeknights and one weekend during facility operations,
during the peak periods of use (e.g., on a Sunday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday evening during the months of
September through April). The specific dates of the monitoring would be unannounced.
The updated nighttime noise survey shall measure nighttime noise levels, while the facility is operating, between 9:00 PM and 11:00
PM (nighttime) and after the facility has ceased operation between 11:00 PM and midnight, at the following locations 1) near the
two residences northeast of the Silveira Parkway and south of the Gallinas Creek Bridge and, 2) at the nearest residence at Santa
Venetia (approximately Site LT -2). The study methodology (methods for determining the significance of impacts due to increased
traffic [on an Ldn basis] and on-site operational noise [San Rafael Municipal Code]) shall be consistent with that used for the original
study prepared for the project by Illingworth & Rodkin (appendix J of the project EIR), and San Rafael Municipal Code Section
8.13.040.
Traffic noise levels resulting from the project shall be evaluated to determine whether or not extending the hours of operation
would result in a substantial increase in noise as compared to the baseline.
Noise levels generated at the facility shall be compared to the baseline noise levels and the San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 8.13,
nighttime noise limits for residential properties (listed in Table 8.13-1), to be exceeded; i.e., 50 dBA Intermittent (Lmax-slow) and 40
dBA Constant (Leq) at the nearest residential property boundary. If the noise study documents compliance with the noise ordinance,
the Planning Division shall provide written confirmation approving the extension of the hours of operation. If the noise ordinance
shows the noise levels would be exceeded, or if several written complaints have been filed by nearby residents documenting noise
concerns, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing to consider whether extension of the hours would be appropriate.
January 16. 2014
M�Mmwmwww
RIFKlr\4D LAW CROUP
VIA I,-A4A1I_ ONLY:
,
Mai iGir) 11hillips
'Members of the San Rafael City Council
1400 Fifth Avenue
Sail Rafael, CA 94901
RE— Kh'�
nMX
Bus -ZEE
Re- Project: 397-400 Smith Ranch Road (Sail Rafael Airport Recreational Facility
Project Amendment)
Request: For Amendment to Ma-ster Use Permit (UP05-08) To Modify Hours of
Operation, File No. UPI 3-050.
Hearing Date and Time: kfflLlary 21. 2014. 7:00 p.m.
Dear Mayor Phillips and Members of the San Rafael City Council:
Our firm has bv,-cn rained by Captain's Cove Property Owners Association
(-Association"), who opposes an) change to the i,el'erenced Master Use Permit ("MUP")
to hICIT(ISe the hours of operation as reques[L'd b� the applicant.
Summary-
• Hours of Operation For Interior Use Should Not lie Increased. Simply
because the outdoor hums of operation \011 be reduced to TOO paii., as a condition of
settlement hct\\cxn the City and LiAhnas (WA:k Defense COLHICil, Inc. (**GCDC"), does
not mean that other neighbodng cornnwniuL:s >110LIld S1,111er and endure illll-';ICLS arising
horn an inavowe to hours of operation to I I AR) p.m.. Sunday throucch I hur"Clay, and
11HU a.m., Friday and Saturday "Oil reg uciny the Imurs Of outdoor Hyh6ng may
how9l to Sinta Vaiwin CAumnity. incrwainp the hours oropcwon vAll hnnu the
W law)"wrh mid n_-idCnts in th,' thw A;sociation strorigl�
chltngw 10 N11 T 141di-Jo;'. "l). 3N I -,,Win; to lows okywnnhw
f'o'. Lii,: In -,unls the;-,: i,, uk) ckwn,%Iiou ol.
terms of the GCDC case and ameWng Be NH P to incwaw any Kars Wpci-sAm.
Mayor Gary Phillips
Members of the San Rafael City Council
January 16, 2014
Page 2 of 4
• Condition of Approval No. 56 is Inadequate and Needs to be Revised.
Condition No. 56 relating to mitigation of impacts that the Project will have on
Association residents is inadequate and requires further review by the Council at a future
public hearing.
• With a Drought Existing in Marin County, Further Environmental Review is
Required. With the advent of a drought emergency in Marin County, and throughout the
State, which constitutes "new information" as defined by CEQA, additional
environmental review is required to address water requirements of the Project.
Discussion:
Findings Set Forth Below as Stated in the Draft Resolution are Inadequate to Support
Amendment of the Master Use Permit to Increase Hours of Operation for Interior Use.
• The Draft Resolution provides in part in the Ninth Recital, "the amendments to
the project do not materially change the project scope ...." [Emphasis added].
• Finding B provides in part, "The proposed indoor and outdoor recreational use,
together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, or materially injurious to properties ... in the vicinity ...."
• Finding B, subpart (4) provides, "The type and intensity of the use has been
determined to complement and be similar to the adjacent public recreational uses."
• Finding B, subpart (7) provides in part, "... the proposed Use Permit
modification does not trigger the requirement for supplemental environmental review
pursuant to CEQA ...."
• Finding C, subpart (8) provides in part, "the proposed modification to hours of
operation ... as required by the terms of the subject Settlement Agreement ... would not
materially alter the proposed use ... ." [Emphasis added].
The inadequacy of each finding is discussed below. For the reasons stated below, the
Association contends these findings cannot be made and the application to increase hours
of operation should be denied.
1. Increasing the Hours of Operation Materially and Adversely Affect
Association Residents.
While increasing the hours of operation by 30 minutes may not appear on its face as a
material change, please consider the perspective of the homeowners and tenants residing
Mayor Gary Phillips
Members of the San Rafael City Council
January 16, 2014
Page 3 of 4
in the Captain's Cove neighborhood. The Recreational Facility Project ("RFP") will
unequivocally change the life of the Association residents, who now experience the
tranquility of a quiet watershed, and very modest traffic counts by users of the San Rafael
Airport. When the RFP is completed, up to 1700 new vehicle trips per day will use the
small barely two-lane road to travel past the backyards of Association residents. Every
night of the week, 365 days per year, it will likely take at least 30 minutes to one hour for
all uses of the RFP to leave the RFP. That means on Friday and Saturday nights,
specifically, there will be traffic as late as 1:00 a.m. in the morning. Such late night
hours are typical in an urban setting, certainly not in a suburb. Further, the use is not
similar to the nearby McGinnis Park Complex, whose access is via an arterial roadway,
Smith Ranch Road, not via a small side residential street snaking along the backyards of
Association residents' homes. Thus, increasing the hours of operation, even by one
minute is simply unacceptable, and certainly not what the owners of each residence in the
Association reasonably bargained for when purchasing. They bargained for a suburban,
not urban experience. In sum, even a 30 minute increase in hours of operation into the
early morning hours is a material change from the perspective of Association residents
and deleterious to the health, safety and welfare of Association residents.
2. Conditions of Approval of the MUP No. 56 Merits the City's Further Review
and Consideration Regarding Mitigation of Impacts on Association Residents.
Conditions of Approval Nos. 53-56, inclusive, relate to efforts to mitigate impacts on
Association residents and Contempo Marin residents, as well as other neighboring
communities along Smith Ranch Road. Specifically, the Association requests that the
City Council consider revising and augmenting Condition No. 56, relating to mitigation
conditions to protect the Association. Given the volume of traffic identified in the EIR,
Condition No. 56, as currently stated, is wholly inadequate and requires additional
mitigation requirements. Accordingly, the Association respectfully requests that the
Council set a future public hearing to reconsider Condition No. 56, and to provide further
protection to the health, safety and welfare of Association residents.
3. Current Drought Conditions Constitute "New Information" Requiring a
Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, subdivision (c) requires a subsequent or
supplemental EIR when "new information, which was not known or could not have been
known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes
available." Here, on December 17, 2012, the City certified its Final Environmental
Impact Report ("FEIR") for the RFP. At that time, Marin County had experienced
substantial rain in November and December 2012, and there was no expectation that
Marin County would suffer from a drought. Fast forward 13 months, and the City, Marin
County and the State are now well into a third record dry year, and are facing what
Mayor Gary Phillips
Members of the San Rafael City Council
January 16, 2014
Page 4 of 4
appears to be a water shortage emergency that could not have been known in December
2012.
The Statutory "new information" test for subsequent environmental impact report (EIR)
on a project has three prongs. A Local & Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (App
2 Dist. 1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, rehearing denied. The three elements include: (i)
New information of substantial importance becomes available; (ii) The "new
information" was not known and could not have been known at time EIR was certified;
and (iii) The "new information" shows either that project will have one or more
significant effects not previously discussed in EIR or that significant effects previously
examined will be substantially more severe than shown in EIR. Id. Here, a severe water
shortage is of substantial importance, was not known at the time the City certified its
FEIR, and will have a significant effect not discussed in the FEIR." Accordingly, given
the impending drought conditions that constitute "new information," further CEQA
review is mandatory for this project.
Conclusion.
The application to amend and increase the hours of operation as provided in Condition of
Approval No. 38 should be denied. Condition of Approval No. 56 merits further Council
review at a future public hearing. Because of the drought, constituting "new
information" under CEQA, further environmental review is mandatory.
Very truly yours,
RIF LAW GR P
By.) (I
Leonard -A. Rifkind
LARIfw
cc: clients
January 21, 2014
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of San Rafael
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94901
RE: Project: 397-400 Smith Ranch Rd. (San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project
Amendment)
My name is Misty Eberhart. I live at 122 Yellowstone Court, (Contempo Marin.) The access
road to the airport and proposed Soccer Complex runs right behind my house.
I am begging you not to let this project extend any operating hours. As it is, our quality of life
around here since this project was approved will be no more, meaning; quiet, serene and safe.
The wildlife in this area are at risk of losing their lives, my yard is full of deer, raccoons, skunks,
wild turkeys and other animals. This will be due to the late hours of operation, and the unstable
drivers whom a lot of them might have consumed alcohol at the facility.
If you extend these operating hours, I will get hardly any sleep every night because of the all of
the cars, headlights and noise I will have to endure knowing I have to get up at Sam to get ready
to go to work.
This project was originally based on let the kids play ... Well, why do children playing soccer need
to be up this late, and drink alcohol. This project is strictly to make money by expanding the
unreasonable late hours of operation. This is not a nightclub, but a sports facility.
I will never go out in my back yard anymore, due to the noise, all of the cars and the gas fumes
in the air.
Please, Please do not let big business ruin our quality of life here in Contempo Marin.
I wish everyone could put themselves in our position. Would you like this going on in your back
yard.
Thank you.
Misty Eberhart
122 Yellowstone Court
San Rafael, CA 94901
Esther Beirne
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Airport
-----Original Message -----
From: Jerry Frate [
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:25 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Re: Airport
Kraig, I don't know how many people are coming tonight from Contempo, not many i would guess. I wanted to be there
but I am just getting over the stomach flu. If you mention to the city council that I feel expanding the operating hours
would be a bad idea because it puts the last people leaving either guests or staff way after 1 am on the weekends. And
we had already gone through many meeting about these hours and should be changed at this late date. Thanks for
explaining my views. Jerry
On Jan 2, 2014, at 4:42 PM, "Kraig Tambornini" <Kraig. wrote:
> All:
> It was prudently recommended that I provide a summary of the issue
> being considered, per the notice recently emailed to you today. As
> some of you may be aware, the Gallinas Defense Council had filed a
> lawsuit challenging the EIR for the San Rafael Airport Recreational
> Facility Project. The lawsuit was settled, resulting in a settlement
> agreement, and have the following outcomes which specifically relate
> to the project
> approval:
> The airport agreed to A) end use of outdoor fields earlier - by 9PM,
> AND
> B) incorporate additional safety enhancements to the proposed
> recreational building.
> The petitioner (Gallinas Defense Council) agreed that it would not
> oppose if the Airport filed a request with the City to extend the
> indoor field hours to 11PM weekdays (instead of 1030PM) and 12AM
> weekends (instead of 1113M). Should the airport file such a request,
> the items above must be included.
> The airport has applied for a use permit amendment to request the
> changes to the indoor field hours and to incorporate the outdoor field
> and building safety measures agreed to per the settlement agreement.
> The City Council will decide whether to grant the amendment to allow
> the indoor field hours to be extended back to the originally requested
> longer hours.
> Hopefully this answers any questions that may have arisen as a result
> of the notice. If not, feel free to contact me
> Thank you
> Kraig Tambornini
> Senior Planner
> (415) 485-3092
Esther Beirne
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:56 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: San Rafael Airport Rec Facility Project Amendment
From: Karen Guerry [mai Ito:
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:13 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: San Rafael Airport Rec Facility Project Amendment
Dear Mr. Tambornini;
I have written before and have never received a response from you.
But I will attempt again to let you know of my dismay and sadness at this project.
It is not the area for it. There is not sufficient street access, freeway access, signals for it.
It is in an area that will disturb the wildlife and the areas that they frequent.
To now say that the lights, noise and traffic will continue until 11:00 on weeknights seems rather absurd. I
keep hearing "but it for the kids". No one wants their kids out until 11:00 on a weeknight and parents should
not want their kids around Beer and Wine until 11:00 on weeknights or 12:00 on weekends. Or really at all
with the underage drinking problem Marin County already has. I also have to work for a living and have to be
to work at an early hour daily. I can already hear the noise at night from the existing soccer play.
I am very against and saddened by this proposed amendment.
I am unable to attend this meeting on Tuesday as my father has just passed and his funeral is that day.
Again, as mentioned, I have written before but since I have heard you say that this is going to be build
regardless of what the people want, I feel my complaint falls on deaf ears.
Sincerely,
Karen Guerry
38 Wharf Circle
San Rafael, CA 94903
1/20/14
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
City of San Rafael
I was very concerned to hear of the petitioning of the Airport Owner to increase their
indoor hours of operation of the soccer complex to 11:OOpm during the week &
midnight on the weekends.
This soccer complex in itself will be such a disturbance (environmentally, noise), also
creating more traffic on Smith Ranch Road & gridlock on the freeway.
Is it too much to ask that their hours of operation be reasonable to the community that
it borders & impacts on a daily basis?
Please consider not allowing this petition to go through to extend its hours. Please
keep in mind our quality or life issues, as you would do for the community you reside
at.
Thank you,
Sara Reingold
Esther Beirne
From:
Kraig Tambornini
Sent:
Friday, January 17, 2014 3:45 PM
To:
Esther Beirne
Cc:
Kraig Tambornini
Subject:
FW: Smith Ranch Airport Recreational Facility Project
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
(415) 485-3092
-----Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Fri 1/17/2014 11:18 AM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Smith Ranch Airport Recreational Facility Project
As a resident of Captain's Cove I am writing to ask that the City not approve the Airport owner's request to increase their
indoor hours of operation of the soccer complex to 11 p.m. during the week and midnight on the weekends. Having cars
and trucks use the road and small bridge which connects to our property will have an adverse affect on our quality of
life and the value of our homes, especially for those of us who live on Sailmaker Court.
It seems that some consideration could be given by both City officials and Airport owners to us as neighbors to make
this work. This is where we live. These are our homes.
Sincerely,
Linda Patrick
1
Esther Beirne
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:46 PM
To: Esther Beirne
Cc: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: FW: Airport rec hours
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
(415) 485-3092
-----Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Fri 1/17/2014 12:14 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Airport rec hours
Dear Sir
The proposed hours of operation for the new facility are simply out of the question. We have to live here and we will
never accede to this. It should close at 9:30pm on weekdays, 10:30pm on Saturday and 10pm on Sunday. That is
reasonable. You have to figure that they won't be actually driving out of there until about 20-30 minutes after the
closing time so the noise from the traffic will always be experienced later. We have the unquestionable right to some
quality of life and you owe it to us because we pay our taxes. Think about it, would you want to hear 200 cars parading
through your neighborhood at 12:30pm on a Sunday night. Never and you know it.
Please give us this respect, don't make it a nasty fight because we will never live without the same peace at night that
we here all know you would undeniably want for your own family.
Sincerely,
Paul Vasquez
29 Sailmaker Ct.
San Rafael
Esther Beirne
From:
Kraig Tambornini
Sent:
Friday, January 17, 2014 3:47 PM
To:
Esther Beirne
Cc:
Kraig Tambornini
Subject:
FW: Airport
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
(415) 485-3092
-----Original Message -----
From: Evan Marks [
Sent: Fri 1/17/2014 2:17 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Re: Airport
Kraig,
I am confused by the sentence: "The City Council will decide whether to grant the amendment to allow the indoor field
hours to be extended back to the originally requested longer hours."
What indoor hours were approved in the Final EIR?
Is the Airport requesting an amendment to those hours?
If the Airport is requesting an amendment to the EIR they surely must:
a) go through the initial 12 month period to establish whether they are creating a noise problem before
b) Apply to the County Council for a revision to the EIR.
A settlement with one petitioner to limit the use of the outdoor fields does not revise the EIR - surely - and allow an
extension in the indoor use which may not affect the petitioner, but may significantly affect others.
Please clarify:
What indoor hours are in the FINAL EIR?
What Outdoor hours are in the FINAL EIR?
What indoor hours is the Airport applying for in the Use Permit?
What outdoor hours is the Airport applying for in the Use Permit?
Thank you in advance - Evan.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Kraig Tambornini < Kra ig. wrote:
> It was prudently recommended that I provide a summary of the issue
> being considered, per the notice recently emailed to you today. As
> some of you may be aware, the Gallinas Defense Council had filed a
> lawsuit challenging the EIR for the San Rafael Airport Recreational
> Facility Project. The lawsuit was settled, resulting in a settlement
> agreement, and have the following outcomes which specifically relate
> to the project
> approval:
> The airport agreed to A) end use of outdoor fields earlier - by 9PM,
> AND
> B) incorporate additional safety enhancements to the proposed
> recreational building.
> The petitioner (Gallinas Defense Council) agreed that it would not
> oppose if the Airport filed a request with the City to extend the
> indoor field hours to 11PM weekdays (instead of 1030PM) and 12AM
> weekends (instead of 11PM). Should the airport file such a request,
> the items above must be included.
> The airport has applied for a use permit amendment to request the
> changes to the indoor field hours and to incorporate the outdoor field
> and building safety measures agreed to per the settlement agreement.
> The City Council will decide whether to grant the amendment to allow
> the indoor field hours to be extended back to the originally requested
> longer hours.
> Hopefully this answers any questions that may have arisen as a result
> of the notice. If not, feel free to contact me
> Thank you
> Kraig Tambornini
> Senior Planner
> (415) 485-3092
Esther Beirne
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:56 AM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: San Rafael Airport Rec Facility Project Amendment
From: Karen Guerry [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:13 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: San Rafael Airport Rec Facility Project Amendment
Dear Mr. Tambornini;
I have written before and have never received a response from you.
But I will attempt again to let you know of my dismay and sadness at this project.
It is not the area for it. There is not sufficient street access, freeway access, signals for it.
It is in an area that will disturb the wildlife and the areas that they frequent.
To now say that the lights, noise and traffic will continue until 11:00 on weeknights seems rather absurd. I
keep hearing "but it for the kids". No one wants their kids out until 11:00 on a weeknight and parents should
not want their kids around Beer and Wine until 11:00 on weeknights or 12:00 on weekends. Or really at all
with the underage drinking problem Marin County already has. I also have to work for a living and have to be
to work at an early hour daily. I can already hear the noise at night from the existing soccer play.
I am very against and saddened by this proposed amendment.
I am unable to attend this meeting on Tuesday as my father has just passed and his funeral is that day.
Again, as mentioned, I have written before but since I have heard you say that this is going to be build
regardless of what the people want, I feel my complaint falls on deaf ears.
Sincerely,
Karen Guerry
Esther Beirne
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
(415) 485-3092
Kraig Tambornini
Friday, January 17, 2014 3:45 PM
Esther Beirne
Kraig Tambornini
FW: Smith Ranch Airport Recreational Facility Project
-----Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Fri 1/17/2014 11:18 AM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Smith Ranch Airport Recreational Facility Project
As a resident of Captain's Cove I am writing to ask that the City not approve the Airport owner's request to increase their
indoor hours of operation of the soccer complex to 11 p.m. during the week and midnight on the weekends. Having cars
and trucks use the road and small bridge which connects to our property will have an adverse affect on our quality of
life and the value of our homes, especially for those of us who live on Sailmaker Court.
It seems that some consideration could be given by both City officials and Airport owners to us as neighbors to make
this work. This is where we live. These are our homes.
Sincerely,
Linda Patrick
Esther Beirne
From:
Kraig Tambornini
Sent:
Friday, January 17, 2014 3:47 PM
To:
Esther Beirne
Cc:
Kraig Tambornini
Subject:
FW: Airport
Kraig Tambornini
Senior Planner
(415)485-3092
-----Original Message -----
From: Evan Marks (
Sent: Fri 1/17/2014 2:17 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Re: Airport
Kraig,
I am confused by the sentence: "The City Council will decide whether to grant the amendment to allow the indoor field
hours to be extended back to the originally requested longer hours."
What indoor hours were approved in the Final EIR?
Is the Airport requesting an amendment to those hours?
If the Airport is requesting an amendment to the EIR they surely must:
a) go through the initial 12 month period to establish whether they are creating a noise problem before
b) Apply to the County Council for a revision to the EIR.
A settlement with one petitioner to limit the use of the outdoor fields does not revise the EIR - surely - and allow an
extension in the indoor use which may not affect the petitioner, but may significantly affect others.
Please clarify:
What indoor hours are in the FINAL EIR?
What Outdoor hours are in the FINAL EIR?
What indoor hours is the Airport applying for in the Use Permit?
What outdoor hours is the Airport applying for in the Use Permit?
Thank you in advance - Evan.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Kraig Tambornini < Kra ig.Tambornini�a)cityofsanrafael.org> wrote:
Esther Beirne
From: Kraig Tambornini
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Esther Beirne
Subject: FW: Airport
-----Original Message -----
From: Jerry Frate [
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:25 PM
To: Kraig Tambornini
Subject: Re: Airport
Kraig, I don't know how many people are coming tonight from Contempo, not many i would guess. I wanted to be there
but I am just getting over the stomach flu. If you mention to the city council that I feel expanding the operating hours
would be a bad idea because it puts the last people leaving either guests or staff way after 1 am on the weekends. And
we had already gone through many meeting about these hours and should be changed at this late date. Thanks for
explaining my views. Jerry
On Jan 2, 2014, at 4:42 PM, "Kraig Tambornini" <Kraig.Tamborn wrote:
> All:
> It was prudently recommended that I provide a summary of the issue
> being considered, per the notice recently emailed to you today. As
> some of you may be aware, the Gallinas Defense Council had filed a
> lawsuit challenging the EIR for the San Rafael Airport Recreational
> Facility Project. The lawsuit was settled, resulting in a settlement
> agreement, and have the following outcomes which specifically relate
> to the project
> approval:
> The airport agreed to A) end use of outdoor fields earlier - by 9PM,
> AND
> B) incorporate additional safety enhancements to the proposed
> recreational building.
> The petitioner (Gallinas Defense Council) agreed that it would not
> oppose if the Airport filed a request with the City to extend the
> indoor field hours to 1113M weekdays (instead of 103013M) and 12AM
> weekends (instead of 11PM). Should the airport file such a request,
> the items above must be included.
> The airport has applied for a use permit amendment to request the
> changes to the indoor field hours and to incorporate the outdoor field
> and building safety measures agreed to per the settlement agreement.
> The City Council will decide whether to grant the amendment to allow
> the indoor field hours to be extended back to the originally requested
1
2
3
41
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ELLISON 1° OI X (State Bar No. 149232)
ERICA A. MAII AMI (State Bar No. 279396)
SHUTE, MIHALY & W INBF', GE=AR LLP
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: 415) 552-7272
Facsimile: (415) 552-5816
Folk@smwlaw.com
maharg@smwlaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
GALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
0"T 0 tl ZL1i3
KP'4')[;ditil;tic<.utrvct`.?jliut
cm 1,
Pi,._ is ��.,;,•x,.-r�. c>.f�,�r,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN
GALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC,
Petitioner,
V.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and CITY
COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and
DOES I - 20,
Respondent.
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LLC,
Real Party in Interest.
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
CASE NO. CIYI300259
Case No. CIV 1300259
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
Courtroom: H
Judge: Hon. Verna Adams
California F,nvironnicriwl Qwility Act
(-'Cl QA"); 11011c IZC,ottrccs Code Section
21167.6, C'odc ol*Civil I'roccclurc § 1094.5
(alternatively § 1085)
I Pursaant to the terms of the settlement a
2 ("Settlement Agreement"), the parties to the a
3 1. Petitioner's action is hereby dismi
4 2. Pursuant to Code of Civil Proccdt
51 enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
6 DATED: September 2013
SHUT
By:
C)
10
11
1211
13C
14 DATED: September 2013 SAN
15
16 By:
17
18
19
20]
21
221
24
25
26 if
27/
28 ii
LITATION FOR DISN'll"-AL
ii
NO. CIV 1100259
greement attached hereto as Exhibit A
hove litigation hereby stipulate as Ibilows,
ssed without prejudice.
re section 664.6, the court retains jurisdiction to
E, MMALY & WEINBERGER J,I-.P
ELLISON FOLK
ERICA A. MAHARG
Attorneys for Petitioner
ALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCII, INC.
CAFAFL CITY ATTORNEY
RIC T. DAVIS
Attorneys for Respondents
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
1�
2
3
4
5
6
7''
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3
171
1 V
19
20
21
22
23
24,
25
i
26
27
28'
DATED: September n, 2013
It is so ordered:
OCT 0 4 2013
VERNA A. ADAMS
FFonorable Verna Adams
Marin County Superior Court
509214.1
CASEN0. CIV 1300259
SSL LAW FIRM LLP
t
By:�}N..
[AAN 1; K. HANNA
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LLC
EXHIBIT A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") is entered into as of
September 18, 2013, by and between Petitioner Gallinas Defense Council, Inc. ("Petitioner"),
Respondents City of San Rafael and the City Council of San Rafael (collectively
"Respondents"), and Real Party in Interest San Rafael Airport ("Real Party"). The parties to this
Agreement will be collectively referred to as "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Real Party proposed the San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility ("Sports
Facility"), consisting of an 86,000 square foot indoor facility and two outdoor fields, one of
which will have outdoor lighting and synthetic turf.
WHEREAS, Respondents prepared and published a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")
for the Sports Facility in August 2011, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") .
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2012, Respondents certified the EIR, adopted the Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations ("Findings") and approved the Sports Facility by
amending the Planted l3evelopment Zoning District and approving the EnvironmenWl l)esigri
Review Permit and the Master Use Permit Amendment ("Conditional Use Permit").
WHEREAS, Petitioner timely filed a.petition for writ of mandate ("Petition") challenging
Respondents' approval of the Sports Facility pursuant to CIjQA. The Petition alleged that
Respondents' approval of the Sports Facility was unlawful because the Findings were not based
on substantial evidence and the EIR, inter alio, failed to include an accurate, sulblc and finite
project description and to disclose and mitigate for the Sports Facility's signilicaitt
environmental impacts. The Petition also alleged that Respondents violated the Planning and
Zoning Law by approving a project that conflicts with the San Rafael General Plan and
applicable zoning designation.
WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred to review their respective factual and legal
concerns and now seek to resolve their differences with respect to the Sports Facility in a manner
that will avoid litigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1, Restrict _ons on Hours ofC�pc ration fc�r the Sports Facility. The Airport agrees
that it will limit the hours of operation for the outdoor fields and artificial lighting to 9 p.m. every
day of the year. Artificial lighting will be turned off no later than 9 p.m. every day and shall not
be turned on again before 8:00 a.m. of the following day. Use of the outdoor fields shall cease
no later than 9:00 pm. No other artificial lighting shall be used on the outdoor playing fields
after 9:00 pm or before 8:00 am. The Airport will ensure that any contract for operation of the
Sports Facility by a third party will include this limitation on use of the outdoor fields and any
third party operator must agree to be bound by the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
Settlement Agreement
Page 2 of 6
2. Safety Measures. The Airport agrees that the occupancy limit for the Indoor
Facility shall not exceed 345 people at any time. The !'airport further agrees that it will
implement the following measures from the list of Optional Building Design Nleasures from the
May 16, 2012 Mead & Hunt letter:
a. EIiminate building skylights.
b. Upgrade roof strength by installing standing seam structural roof panels
supported by hot formed i beam main structural columns anti beams.
C. Build Concrete walls on first floor, to a minimum height of 8 feet NGVD.
d. Provide ferwing between parking lot and outdoor fields in order to control
occupancy levels on outdoor fields; include at least 4 clearly marked exit gates.
C. Prohibit airport access gates in fencing separating the Sports Facility from
the airfield; separation fencing shall be of sufficient height and design to prevent children from
accessing the airfield.
3. The Gallinas Watershed Prowarn. am. On June 1, 2013, the City approved the
expenditure of $40,O00 to fund its participation in the Gallinas Watershed Program, leo later
than thirty (30) days after approval of this Agreement by the City, the Airport shall contribute an
additional $20,000 to the City of San Rafael and the City shall use this money for participation in
the Marin County Gallinas Watershed Program.
4. 11s,trs of The Airport may apply to the City, for
_...
modification of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of the indoor facility to 11
p.m. Sunday through Thursdays and to 12 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Stich application will
be subject to notice and hearing as required by Government Code section 65905 and section
14.22.150 of the City's 'Zoning Code. Petitioner will not oppose this application provided that
the City simultaneously agendizes and approves a modification to the Conditional Use Permit to
limit the use of the outdoor fields as set forth in Paragraph I .
5. Terms of A-uecment Included in the Conditional Use Permit. Concurrent with
any request for the extension of hours set forth in Paragraph 4, the Airport will request that the
terms set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Agreement will be incorporated as conditions of
approval in the Conditional Use Permit.
6. smissal. Within fifteen (15) days following the Effective Hate of this
Agreement, Petitioner shall dismiss its Action with prejudice pursuant to stipulation. The Parties
t -,a; request that this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this °tti ment Agreement
r�,,,Fuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
7. Fnforcement. This Agreement may be enforced by motion pursuant to Code of
Civil Proccdurt section 664.6. The prevailing Party in any dispute regarding compliance
the terms of this A1,7cQmcnt shall be awarded any fines, costs, penalties, or remedies provided Ir-,
Settlement Agreement
Page 3 of 6
law, including injunctive relief and/or specific performance. Additionally, the prevailing Party
shall be awarded its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs consistent with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
8. Release. Except for the obligations stated herein, Petitioner, Respondents, and
Real Party do hereby for themselves and their respective legal successors and assigns release and
absolutely and forever discharge each other and their respective shareholders, officers, directors,
employees, agents, attorneys, legal successors, and assigns of and from any and all Claims,
demands, damages, debts, liabilities, accounts, reckonings, obligations, costs, expenses, liens,
actions, and causes of action of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether now known or
unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which either now has, owns or holds, or at any time
heretofore ever had, owned or held, or could, shall, or may hereafter have, own or hold against
the other related to the claims alleged in the Petition based upon or arising out of any matter,
cause, fact, thing, act or omission whatsoever occurring or existing at any time to and including
the date hereof including the Action (all of which are hereinafter referred to as and included
within the "Released Matters'. Petitioner reserves its right to challenge, in the manner provided
by law, any future applications by Real Party or any other Party for any other activities or uses
on the Airport property (excluding any applications relating to the implementation of Paragraph
1 and 4 of this Agreement).
9. Successors in Interest. The rights and obligations of the Parties pursuant to this
Settlement Agreement shall inure to and be binding upon each of the Parties hereto and each of
their respective successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, devisees, vendees or
transferees, and their past or present, direct or indirect, relatives, partners, parents, subsidiaries,
divisions or affiliates, and their representatives, agents, officers, directors or employees, and each
of them, as though they were parties hereto.
10. Notices. All notices which any Party to this Settlement Agreement may be
required or may wish to give in connection with this Settlement Agreement may be given by the
Party desiring to give such notice or notices by addressing them to the other Party at the
addresses set forth below (or at such addresses as may be designated by written notices given in
the manner designated herein), by personal delivery or by certified mail and by electronic
transmission. Such shall be deemed Notice under this Agreement when received by the Party or
upon refusal to accept the personal delivery or certified mail. The addresses of the Parties until
further notice are:
For Petitioners:
Gallinas Defense Council, Inc.
4460 Redwood Highway, Suite 16-309
San Rafael, CA 94903
with a copy to-
Settlement Agreement
Page 4 of 6
Ellison Folk
Shute-, Mihaly & Weinberger
396 Hayes St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
For Respondents:
City of San Rafael
Robert Epstein, City Attorney
1400 Fifth Ave., RM 202
San Rafael, CA 94915
For Real Party:
Robert Herbst
San Rafael Airport LLC
400 F Smith Ranch Road
San Rafael, CA 94903
with a copy to.
Diane Hanna
SSL Law Firm LLP
575 Market St., Suite 2700
San Francisco, CA 94105
11. Re resenta i n by Counsel. Each Party acknowledges that it has been represented
and advised by legal counsel, and that this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between
the Parties and is executed freely and voluntarily by the Parties. There are no oral
understandings, terms or conditions, and neither Party has relied upon any representation,
express or implied, not contained in this Agrccment. No other promises, agreements, or
statements shall be binding unless signed by the person or entity to be bound. This Agreement
may not be modified, altered, or otherwise amended unless set forth in a writing signed by both
Parties.
12, No Liability. Each Patty agrees and acknowledges that neither this Agreement
nor the settlement negotiations which led to it are intended to be, and shall not be deemed,
construed, nor treated in, any respect, as an admission of liability or any other matter by any
Party, person, or entity fdr any purpose.
13. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Except as provided in Paragraph 8, all Parties will
bear their own fees and costs in connection with this matter.
14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, andf �c rt ��i�il� or
PDI �4,mfv%5 are acceptable. Each counterpart shall be deemed an origin' -J. aric" v, -hen
Settlement Agreement
Page 5 of 6
executed, separately or together, shall constitute a single original instrument, effective in the
same manner as if the Parties had executed one and the same instrument.
15. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement shall be considered severable so
that if any provision or part of this Agreement shall at any time be held invalid, the remainder of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
16. Waiver. No waiver by the Parties or by their respective attorneys of any
condition, provision, or term of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other condition,
provision, or term of this Agreement.
GALLINAS CREEK DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
By: -
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Ellison Folk
Counsel for Gallinas Creek Defense Council, Inc.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
( �� ✓t r .
N
By
r ~'
Name:
Title;
Approved as to Form:
Robert F. Epstein
City Attorney, City of San Rafael
[Signatures continued on next page.[
Pago 6 ol*6
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT, LLC,
a California limited liability ecimpany
Bv:
Name: Robcrt fltrbsi
'fitle: Manapw
Approved as to Fenn:
Diane K. Hanna
Counsel for San Rafael qwt, LLC
GALLINAS DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
By:. 3E1z
Name:(}��
Title: T � 1-P
Approved
as to Form:
Ellison Folk
Counsel for Gallinas Creek Defense Council, Inc.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL and SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
By.__ ...... _
Name:
Title:
Approved as to Form:
Robert F. Epstein
City Attorney, City of San Rafael
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By
Name: Robert Herbst
Title: Manager
Approved as to Form:
Diane K. Hanna
5
SCti:ement A'."rec'menl
Page G ref h
SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT, LLC,
a California limited liability company
BY:
Name: Robert Herbst
Title: 'Manager
:1�Sprroved/ as to Torr'{mj::{(�' (�]
Diane K. Hanna
Counsel for San Rafael Airport., LU-'
1�
1
1� PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Gallinas Defense Council v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Case No. CIV1300259
3 Marin County, Superior Court
4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
employed in the City and County of Sart Francisco, State of California. My business address is
5 396 Hayes Street, S,rn I"rancisco, CA 94102. j
6 On September W, 2013, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as:
7 STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
i
8 on the parties in this action as follows:
9 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
10 s BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package ttdcle.swd to the
hcrS01)s zit thy, �acldtcsses listed hv't
t the Sctc;c I,ist anti placed the envelope fbr collection "I(]!
11 1 �mlilitil:. i`allowing our otdin<n•0?t1sincSS praCliccs. I ant readily fanrilt tr will) ` shite, N'lilnaly
e.inh�ts ct� l.t,s l tac.tire 1�7r eollectaittz �utd j�r�rc�c ;rtt�� COITCSI) ildettc:e l'oi ttFttilitih. Oil the
12 `dell cltl� that the corre.sp�ondencs. is hloced Lasa, collcctiti'n '11W nt ail€aIl! it is deposited in the
cudit�tu�ca�ttrsc oi`htisincss With lltc 1_jttik'd S'WieS f'a.��tttl scrvicc. ira iI sealed cttvciope with
13 postage hilly prepaid.
14' I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
+, foregoing is true and correct.
1.5 j
Executed on September3O, 2013, at San Francisco, California.
16
17'
18 1 Patrici�'Isuencer
191
20
21
22
I
23
4
4',i
25
26j
27
i
28
�. STIPGLA'rIQN I' R DISMISSAL
CASE N0. CIV 13300259
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SERVICE LIST
Gallinas Defense Council v. City of San Rafael, et al.
Case No. CIV1300259
Marin County Superior Court
(:obc t I" Ftlsleill.City Attorney Diane K. Hanna
I ric '1. 1)'n i�. Dc�l,uty City A1161-ncy SSL Law Firm LLP
('itv nt'`)an Rt it it:1 0tv Attorney's Of'fic'e 575 Market Street, Suite 2700
1400 hhh /%venwe, Riii 202 San Francisco, CA 94105
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 diea-ie@ssilawfirrii.com
Tel: 415-485-3080 Tel: 415-243-2090
Fax: 415-485-3109 Fax: 415-814-6401
Attorneys for Defendants Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, and CITY SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT LLC
COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
STIPULATION FOR DISIMISSAL
CASE NO. CIVI300259
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project:
PROJECT: 397-400 Smith Ranch Road (San Rafael Airport Recreational Facility Project
Amendment) — Request for an amendment to the Master Use Permit (UP05-08) Conditions of
Approval to modify hours of operation and construction details of the recently approved
85,700 -square -foot recreational building and outdoor fields located on a 16.6 acre portion of
the San Rafael Airport site, to address the terms of the settlement agreement between the City
of San Rafael, the San Rafael Airport LLC and Gallinas Defense Council, Inc.; APN: 155-
230-10 thru 16; PD 1909 -WO District; San Rafael Airport LLC, owner/applicant; File No:
UP13-050
As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed On
December 17, 2012 the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report prepared for
the project pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This
amendment is consistent with the scope ofproject evaluated by the EIR and is proposed based
on a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit preciously challenging certification of the
subject EIR
HEARING DATE: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street
San Rafael, California
WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and
HAPPEN: decide whether to approve the project applications.
IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of
ATTEND: San Rafael, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior
to the meeting.
FOR MORE Contact Kraig Tambornini, Project Planner at (415) 485-3092 or
INFORMATION: lCraig.tambornini@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office,
located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. on
Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the
Friday before the meeting at hgp://www.cityofsanrafael.orjz/meetinps
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Esther Beime
Esther Beirne
CITY CLERK
At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter
described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues % ou or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b)
(2)).
Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the
date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6)
Sign Lan�Q-ia,c and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198
ITDDi at least 72 hours to advance. Copies of doc unwilts are mwanabiu in accessivieJortnats uvon ivgacst.
Public transportation to City- Hall is avcnlabicthroi1,th Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is m ailable by calling
I Uiisilestop 477eels at (415) 454-0964.
To alloir individuals with environmemal illness or tnuNple chemical sensitivity to attend the mcetin, hearing, individuals are requested
to refrain from wearing scented products.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
ROUTING SLIP / APPROVAL FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: USE THIS FORM WITH EACH SUBMITTAL OF A CONTRACT, AGREEMENT,
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION BEFORE APPROVAL BY COUNCIL / AGENCY.
SRRA / SRCC AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.a
DATE OF MEETING: January 21, 2014
FROM: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DATE: 1/8/14
TITLE OF DOCUMENT: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDMING A
MASTER USE PERMIT (UP13-050) MODIFYING THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND BUILDING SAFETY
MEASURES FOR THE SAN RAFAEL AIRPORT RECREATIONAL FACILITY PROJECT AT 397-400
SMITH RANCH ROAD
Department Head (signature)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
(LOWER HALF OF FORM FOR APPROVALS ONLY)
APPROVED AS COUNCIL / AGENCY
AGENDA ITEM:
City Manager (signature)
NOT APPROVED
REMARKS:
City Attorney (signature)
r